When the debate was adjourned last night I was asking the Minister to accept this amendment. Having examined the long title of the first Bill, and also that of the Bill introduced by the Minister in relation to equal pay we find little difference in the long titles. The Minister says there is an emphasis of change indicated by the second title but, as we see it, it is a contradiction in terms. We have already pointed out that section 9 is a section which permits discrimination against female workers. If the Minister wishes this to be an anti-discrimination Bill he must surely eliminate the discrimination in section 9 in its present form. Surely we must not legislate to discriminate against people. That is what this Bill is doing.
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 30:
To delete all words after "the" and substitute "Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Act, 1974."—(Deputy Dowling.)
The title, as I explained last night, takes its significance from the subsequent pieces of legislation which will follow on dismissal and unfair discrimination in general in employment. As I indicated, this Bill simply concentrates on one aspect, namely, the pay of women. The Bill sets out the definitions and procedures whereby a woman will be able to get her equal deserts in the matter of pay before the law.
I understand it is bad parliamentary practice to have a Bill called "anti" something; it should be "pro" something. The Minister might call this the "Pro-Equal Pay Bill" instead of the "Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill". That would be more decisive. We all admit now that there is discrimination. Even at this late hour could the Minister put in a clause to the effect that this Bill is purely a temporary measure and that he intends to remove this anomalous section as soon as he has more comprehensive legislation ready to ensure equality of all people employed? If he does not do that I shall certainly vote against the Bill, even though there are one or two things in it which are quite good. Would the Minister meet us by changing the title?
There is a good deal of virtue in what the Deputy said. This is just one part of three separate pieces of legislation which will, I hope, change the whole contract of employment in industry. This Bill deals with just one important aspect, equal pay for work of equal value. We have set down the procedures and the penalties for employers who break the provisions of the Bill. I think Deputy Moore's point is a good one and when the entire legislative package is passed we can consider the whole matter as being, perhaps, more accurately described as "Fair Employment" legislation.
Would the Minister not just call it the "Equal Pay Bill"? There is a clause in this Bill under which discrimination can occur. "Anti-Discrimination (Equal-Pay) Bill" would be a better title for this. Until further legislation is brought in this is wide open to discrimination.
The Minister is not concerned apparently about continuity of employment which would be of vital importance to a person seeking equal pay. We have discussed this aspect over and over again. If the Minister does not write in some safeguard there is bound to be discrimination. The emphasis here is on pay, but pay is only one factor. We are concerned about continuity of employment. Consider the position of a person who gives good service for 20 or 30 years and the employer throws her on the scrapheap; all the employer will suffer is a small penalty or perhaps no penalty at all.
The Deputy's amendment deals specifically with the substitution of words. This is a matter of the title of the Bill.
A Bill which permits discrimination against workers cannot surely be called an anti-discrimination Bill. This Bill positively carries discrimination against female workers who seek equal pay, win their cases, and are dismissed as a result of successfully seeking equal pay. The Minister says he cannot write a safeguard into the Bill. But discrimination is written into the Bill and the Minister says nothing can be done about it except through the medium of other legislation.
We have passed these stages.
We want to ensure there will be no discrimination. From the point of view of section 9, the title is a contradiction in terms.
One could not regard a penalty of up to £1,000 as a small penalty. No employer would lightly disobey the provisions of this Bill. I also think the majority of employers are broadly in agreement with the terms of this legislation because of its fairness and its justice.
There has been some disagreement about the time of implementation of this legislation in that it comes some two years in advance of the latest date recommended by the Council for the Status of Women, but, apart from these reservations, on the general broad principles of the legislation no reputable employer has voiced any disquiet or reservations, or disagreement in any case. Therefore I think that in regard to the few cases Deputy Dowling spoke about, where there may be a danger that somebody would be dismissed from employment because of looking for her rights under this legislation, as has been made quite clear earlier in the debate the idea of the Bill is to act as a deterrent to employers who would act in that way.
It has been made clear also to the Deputy that in comparable British legislation there is no section dealing with it. What we do here in the deterrent features of this Bill is more or less in line with what other countries have done in similar legislation. Finally in the unfair dismissals legislation, which I hope to bring before the House shortly, we will go into all of this area in regard to the retention in employment of people who look for their rights. We will go into this in depth and ensure that the contract of employment will be protected for the employee. That will be an appropriate time to deal with the points the Deputy raised.
I am not concerned about the penalties laid down for employers. I am concerned about continuity in employment for people who look for their rights, people who seek the aids guaranteed in this Bill. As a result of seeking these aids they will find themselves out of employment. That is discrimination.
The Minister is being naive when he mentions fines and penalties for employers. Section 8 states that where a court of competent jurisdiction is satisfied that the sole reason for dismissal was the making of the claim,
the employer shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000.
That may go against the worker who seeks her rights. We would be perfectly satisfied if the Minister reviewed section 8 and inserted one line providing that a person's conditions of employment shall not be worsened by making a claim for equal pay. That is all the Minister has to do.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the section."
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairi.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacSharry Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Kelly and Barry Desmond; Níl: Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 13 agreed to.