The Deputy is anxious that we should avoid legal fees arising out of any interpretation of section 5. I see very little possibility of any widely differing interpretation of what is implied by section 5. A simple majority is a matter of arithmetic.
I would again draw Deputy Dowling's attention to the provisions of section 3. It reads:
(a) every member of the union shall be entitled to vote on the resolution;
(b) every member of the union shall be allowed to vote without interference or constraint and, so far as is reasonably possible, shall be given a fair opportunity of voting;
(c) the method of voting shall consist of the marking of a voting paper by the person voting;
(d) the union shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, not less than seven days before voting on the resolution begins, every member of the union has received a notice in writing complying with subsection (2).
I have already made it clear that (1):
the method of voting shall consist of the marking of a voting paper by the person voting;
gives the right of postal voting. In addition, the notice which the member receives seven days before must, according to section 3 (2), set out in full the relevant instrument, or give sufficient account of it to enable a recipient of the notice to form a reasonterferenc able judgment of the main effects of the proposed amalgamation or transfer.
Deputy Dowling has made a plea for layman's language to be used. Obviously if this notice does not set out in a reasonable way for the benefit of the person who will be voting the main effects of the proposed amalgamation or transfer, the person to whom the notice is addressed has a grievance. If it does not set out the instrument in full, it must declare where copies of the instrument may be inspected. Does Deputy Dowling think the registrar could overlook the appeal of a person who was not given an opportunity to examine copies of the instrument, if he was not given them in clear, layman's language?
Deputy Dowling's amendment, although he does not intend it in this fashion, strikes at the entire usefulness of the legislation which is before us. Deputy Dowling refers to a case in his own union in which many hours, days, months and a great deal of his union's money were spent in obtaining professional and legal advice as to where right lay in regard to a ballot. Section 5 will obviate that. It will be a simple requirement of a majority decision. In coming to that majority decision certain criteria have been laid down to ensure that every member taking part in that decision is in full possession of the facts. He must know the kind of instrument he is voting on; he must have had reasonable notice. He must have had a reasonable opportunity of voting. If these provisions are not complied with, he can appeal to the registrar who may declare the whole transaction invalid.
Deputy Dowling is right in saying this is a very big deterrent. Of course it is. What union in its senses, coming up to a vote on a merger, realising that all these provisions must be fulfilled, would attempt to indulge in sharp practice? What commonsense person on any controlling body of a union could think that there was even a remote prospect of success in undertaking certain of the practices which fill Deputy Dowling with alarm?
The legislation provides, as far as is humanly possible that those who have to make a decision will be enlightened as to the facts of the case. Naturally no legislation can force knowledge on any person unwilling to imbibe it, but the legislation ensures that the person making the decision will have the full facts available to him. Therefore it is absured to suggest that a person could be deprived of his vote if Deputy Dowling's amendment is not carried.
Deputy Dowling paints the picture of a small group of people who may overturn the majority democratic sentiment of an association by saying that a ballot was to take place on an occasion when a representative number of people could not be present. All the provisions of this legislation would rule out that possibility. The registrar will know the provisions of this legislation. He will know all the information that must be put at the disposal of the individual union voter. If any of these provisions is not carried through to the letter, the aggrieved person may appeal to the registrar. The union authorities involved will know this and will have to comply with these requirements.
In the situation that existed before, untold obstacles were put in the way of the desire for amalgamations or mergers. It was a lawyers' paradise. The law, on the one hand, was vague but, on the other hand was specific about certain undertakings that must be carried through. Nowhere was it more specific than on this matter of the percentage majority. It was as though the law did not trust the members of the union or association with the control of their own affairs. While a majority was good enough to decide the Government of the country, when it came to matters such as unions coming together, the law had no trust in majority rule.
I abide by majority rule and, more than that, I see the necessity to ensure that the majority are given full protection in relation to the decision to be made. These provisions will ensure that protection. People will be given the full information seven days beforehand. That gives adequate time for anyone to form an opinion. A decision about a merger or amalgamation would have been considered at all levels of the union or association a great length of time before the actual vote took place. Of course, no vote on a merger or amalgamation by a union could be compared with the vote that takes place in either the trade dispute situation or the wage negotiation situation. In these cases decisions must be made relatively rapidly. This could not hold in the case of an amalgamation. Before the day arrived for a vote of this kind, presumably decisions would have had to be taken at the annual conference of the union concerned, and there would be this filtering process of discussion at various branches. All of this could not take place in a span of less than a year. In the span of a year it is not possible for a small minority group, bearing in mind the provisions of this legislation, to create the kind of situation outlined here by Deputy Dowling.
The major advantage of this legislation is its removal of previous obstacles, its removal of the many specific provisions relating to voting procedures and especially to numbers involved.
Deputy Dowling said there must have been good reason for these earlier provisions and he referred to changing opinions in this whole area. True, lawyers change their opinions and legal attitudes have changed over the years. Some years ago those who considered the matter may have believed that the greater the number of small unions the better. We now know that there is a better chance of individual members having a better union and better facilities within that union if they are members of a union which can employ specialist staffs and meet Government, employers or representative bodies on a footing of equality.
We know that trade unions no longer must confine their activities to mere wage negotiations. Increasingly unions must be able to understand the problems of the economy at large and, in order to do that, they must be able to employ staff, international staff, specialist economic staff, the kind of staff competent to translate their members' aspirations into action. We met unions at the beginning of the autumn months and we will be meeting them increasingly in the months ahead and it certainly serves the national interest when, meeting these unions, we are faced with representatives and staff backed by adequate service in their head offices. Where the law previously impeded unions coming together this legislation removes that obstacle. That is a big advance and it should be a solid encouragement to unions to come together. The last legislation in this area was sometime around 1970.
Earlier I told Deputy Moore that we cannot force people in free association to come together. This is on a piece with all legislation attempted in the area of industrial relations. Legislation must facilitate and encourage. It cannot coerce because that would be both undesirable and unsucessful, as we know from the experience of those who attempted that course elsewhere. Deputy Dowling is at one with me in his desire to see unions come together. He is at one with me in agreeing with the provisions of this legislation. He agrees there must be an executive authority within Ireland to govern the affairs of Irish unions. In this legislation we are putting an end to the situation in which Irish unions were controlled from outside. This is a first step in a very complicated area. Since Deputy Dowling is in agreement with the many changes involved in this legislation I would ask him to withdraw this amendment because I believe its acceptance would take us back to a state of affairs we are now intent on leaving, that state of affairs in which the law was itself an actual impediment to the coming together of unions, a costly situation and a complicated area of warring interpretations as to the legal rights and wrongs of unions coming together.
In section 3 we discharge adequately our duty to ensure members will take part in a fair ballot. We provide for the principle of majority decision. If we can form the Government of the country by a majority vote surely we should accept the same principle when it is a question of unions coming together. It smacks of paternalism to suggest that when it is a question of an association of workers coming together the State should step in and suggest a certain percentage majority before a verdict may be recorded as just and reasonable. I know that is far from Deputy Dowling's mind. It is the thinking of a period now past and the fact that it is past is something we should welcome.
Majority vote is a reliable indication of the validity of any decision. Taken in conjunction with section 3 it ensures the union must take all reasonable steps to ensure that not less than seven days before the voting all those entitled to vote must be in full possession of the facts. The voter must be given all the relevant information to enable the voter to form a reasonable judgement and, if the union does not set out all the terms of the instrument, it must tell the voter clearly where copies of the instrument may be inspected. If all these provisions in section 3 are not complied with there is an appeal to the registrar. The union executive committee will know that there is such an appeal.
Section 3 transforms every union member into a custodian of justice and fairness. Deputy Dowling knows the area of industrial relations. He knows it is not an area susceptible of sweeping gestures. We cannot coerce solutions. It is an area in which we must persuade and argue and take modest steps along the road to improving things. This legislation provides that the executive must reside in Ireland and it is hoped that this will result in nudging those members of unions based outside this country in the direction of taking control of their own affairs. Deputy Dowling is of the same mind as I am on many of these things. I would appreciate his support in this. His amendment would mean a lapse back into a past to which none of us wish to return. We are clearing away now certain legal impediments. Majority rule is something from which we should not depart.