Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1974

Vol. 276 No. 3

Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage.

SECTION. 1.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I move amendment No. 1:

1. In page 2, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"(2) For the purposes of sections 3 and 4 ‘member', in relation to a trade union, means a member for the time being entitled to any benefits provided out of the funds of the trade union but, where the rules of a trade union specify the persons (or class of persons) entitled to vote on a particular matter (or class of matter), ‘member' means those persons".

Under this amendment as originally drafted trade unions which propose to amalgamate or transfer their engagements would have to send copies of notices to their members. In consultation with trade unions and other interested parties, it was suggested that difficulties could arise for trade unions in trying to determine, for the purpose of the Bill, who were members. It might strike Deputies as odd that the trade unions should find it difficult to know who were members but there are differing rules and different interpretations in various unions about the standing of particular members. To date there has been more litigation than is desirable to determine who had the standing of a member of a trade union.

It was indicated during these discussions that union rules provided for a continuation of membership even though the member concerned had, perhaps, failed to pay his dues for a period and had become what is known as a non-benefit member or a member in arrears. In some cases, the exclusion of a member in arrears requires under union rules a notification to be sent to that member by registered post. This has already given rise to a number of difficulties where the address of a member was not known to those who were anxious to communicate with him or her. To overcome these difficulties this amendment provides that for the purposes of sections 3 and 4 a "member" will be defined as a member in good standing with his union and that where the rules of a trade union specify the persons entitled to vote on a question, members means those persons.

In other words, it was to rid the ensuing legislation of ambiguity about the status of a member that this amendment was considered necessary. The existing situation is one that is liable to give rise to a good deal of dissension in terms of the later provisions of this legislation for amalgamation or a transfer of engagements, if there was this fundamental confusion about who was entitled to vote or what was the standing of a trade union member. In such circumstances we could foresee extraordinary legal difficulties, defeating the whole purpose of the legislation.

In discussions with the trade unions we arrived at this definition of who was a member and to clear the way for the further action contemplated in the legislation this was necessary.

Mr. Dowling

Did the Minister consider the question of dual membership, a person being a member of two unions? There are people who are members of two unions and I should like to know if they would be entitled to participate both ways. Would they be entitled to participate at meetings of the two unions? There is a weakness at a later stage in relation to voting procedure which could mean that a simple majority, as indicated by the Minister as being desirable in section 5, might not be all that satisfactory if those with dual membership were allowed to participate. There is also the question of out of trade members. In some unions such members are allowed to participate in voting procedures while in others they are not.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am puzzled by the question put by the Deputy about dual membership. What has the Deputy in mind?

Mr. Dowling

There are people who are members of two unions. Such people hold a card of convenience in one union but they are active members of another union. This may not be widespread but it does occur. Where a simple majority is required a person with dual membership could affect the decision of a union.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Our definition of "member" of a union would be that if he complied with the requirements of that union and was in good standing he would be entitled to vote.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister define "good standing"?

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the union in its rules, and these differ according to various unions, states what is a "member in good standing" that should be the definition of a "member in good standing". That seems to be the simplest and best way to get out of the ruck of controversy and dissension there is in this field. That is what we have done in this amendment.

Mr. Moore

I am sure the Minister can recall the court case involving two unions some years ago. In that case a man sought election to a post in a union but the union informed him that he was not a member. From memory the unions involved were the Seamen's Union and the Marine Port and General Workers' Union. The court ruled that this man was not eligible to stand for election. Had there been a simple definition there it would have saved the unions a lot of time and money. Generally speaking, if one is eight weeks in arrears of payment of union dues one is debarred from membership.

Mr. Esmonde

Is the Deputy referring to the wording of the rules of the union involved?

Mr. Moore

I am seeking an overall definition of what is a "member of good standing".

Mr. Esmonde

In regard to the court case the Deputy mentioned, is he referring to an interpretation by the court of the rules of the union?

Mr. Moore

The court ruled that this man was not eligible to become secretary of the union.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am sure the Deputy can see that this is an area in which one could be in difficulties forever in deciding the qualities of a good member and the criteria. The amendment leaves this definition to the union rules. We are concerned with the amalgamation and transfer of engagements, how to get different unions to come together, how to remove legal difficulties from the path of those who wish to come together and that is why we put in that the definition of a "member of good standing" be that of the union concerned.

Mr. Wyse

I see a weakness here. "Good standing" is very broad. If a member of a union objected to another member on the grounds of "good standing" what evidence has to be produced by the member before he can vote?

Mr. M. O'Leary

That would be a matter between the member and the executive or the ruling committee. The purpose in dealing with unions which up to now have had no executive functioning is to bring in such a functioning executive, to ensure that it comes in by order. Obviously, a "member of good standing" would be a person who was so in the opinion of the governing executive or committee of the organisation he belonged to. It would be very rash of this Legislature to think that we can go into such a detailed and contentious area and set down in statute form our opinion about the constituent parts of a "member of good standing". We have tried to let the rules of the organisation itself determine who is "of good standing".

Mr. Wyse

Would the Minister not think it would be advisable to give more power to the executive to decide on such matters? A member could walk in to a trade union meeting with a number of other members to support him on this issue.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The power is in the union rules. The executives of unions do not see the necessity for any strength to be added to their own authority in this area. This legislation gives the power, and the precedents, to the union rules concerned. That is all we sought to do and in my view it is a common-sense approach. The power mentioned by the Deputy is not sought by the executives.

Mr. Esmonde

If we did as Deputy Wyse suggested we would be running into trouble on legal principles. This is rather like club law and we have to be very careful. This legislation does one wise thing; it recognises where there are "property rights". A member may not necessarily have a vote but he has "a property right" to the funds of the union. That is a very important fundamental principle.

Mr. Moore

I appreciate the Minister's difficulty but there are 93 trade unions. For that reason we could have 93 different definitions of a member of "good standing".

Mr. Esmonde

We have the definition here.

Mr. Moore

But the 93 trade unions may have different rules. I accept that we are recognising their right to do so but I do not think we are helping them to have a common definition of a "member of good standing".

Mr. Esmonde

I do not believe the Minister can go any further. There are dangers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is similar to the rules of a club. In section 2 we will deal with this question of property.

Mr. Dowling

I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to the amendment. A "member of good standing" is generally taken as a person in benefit or who has been in benefit for eight or ten weeks. The question of flexibility within the union and of an executive being able to make a decision to debar arises. If there is no union rule covering this aspect then the executive can debar a large number of people at their own discretion by indicating what in their opinion is a "member of good standing". Where this discretion or flexibility is given it can be dangerous, particularly in the case of a merger. The Minister might consider this point later. He should ensure that members have in their rule book a definition of a "member of good standing". Branch committees or national executives can decide and can debar people, depending on their interpretation at the time, and taking into consideration the personnel who might or might not be in difficulties with the union in relation to arrears.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, lines 31 and 32, to delete "provision" and substitute "section".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Dowling. Amendment No. 13 in the name of the Minister is related to it. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are consequential on No. 13. Therefore, amendments Nos. 3, 13, 16 and 17 should be discussed together.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No 3:

After subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Two or more trade unions-shall not amalgamate unless the union with the greater or greatest number of members has a decision making executive in Ireland".

The Minister has met this amendment to a large extent. I am glad he has changed his mind because on a previous occasion when we mentioned this, he did not think it likely that that aspect of the situation would evolve. We feel it necessary that we have institutional as well as political freedom. The attitude of trade unions on the continent, in Great Britain and elsewhere may differ very much from those here and conditions that may be acceptable to continental workers may not be acceptable to Irish workers. We are concerned also that congresses abroad would be in no way able to dictate to trade unions here, or to executives here, as to what is best for Irish workers. There are cases at present where foreign-based executives do dictate and have done so in the past. We want to ensure that we have entire freedom here. We want to ensure also that, where changes have to be made, we will not be sacrificing our trade union officials for others in London, Paris or Rome.

I am glad the Minister has given an assurance which clears the air to a large extent. I am indeed, glad he has conceded to our request. Our amendment has been down for quite a considerable time past. It was heartening to see the amendments put forward by the Minister taking into consideration the aspect to which I have referred. I am certain Irish workers will be satisfied that a positive step has now been taken. Our motion was framed in order to have a decision-making executive in Ireland, the entire island, much on the same basis as that indicated by the Minister. We have no desire to see people being shifted from one trade union to another. It was mentioned to me at one time that people who were members of foreign-based unions would have to join an Irish union because of the limitation of unions here catering for particular trades. There is no desire on my part—nor, I am sure, on the part of the Minister —to see a direction of trade union personnel towards completely Irish-based trade unions as against those with a decision-making executive here.

On that basis, we welcome the Minister's assurance that the way is now clear for ensuring that we attain the institutional freedom so necessary and desirable for Irish workers, so that they may cope with their own problems and make decisions without any outside interference.

The point made by Deputy Moore was in relation to the EEC. Perhaps the Minister will touch on this when replying and let us know if there is any restriction laid down in our membership of the EEC which would in any way water down our motion or that of the Minister.

Mr. Moore

We are back to an aspect of membership. As the Minister is aware, at present in England there is a quarrel in a union in a certain nationalised industry where an offer of a wage increase was rejected. The TUC in England are querying the numbers who voted in that ballot. They point out that there were more votes cast than there were members. The person who has been criticised for the alleged over-voting said: "Of course, what happened was that, since we took the last roll of members, I have been very active and there are a lot of new members." The same thing could happen here. Suppose that in one part of the country there were, say, a thousand members on the first of January and there was a move to amalgamate later in that year, could there be a specified date on which the membership be declared—each section of the union inside or outside the State? For example, on such date, it would have to be declared that a union had X number of members. We would have to ensure that that number would not suddenly increase to, say, double in an endeavour to influence a decision as to where that union should be domiciled. Could we say: "You declare your membership as of today and that obtains for a year or two years for voting purposes." For example, at an annual congress here, there might be a union which, by the card vote was entitled to so many votes but when, for example, does one alter that? When does it increase or decrease? Let us say that this year the transport union has a card vote of 5,000 members. When does that change? Would that union be able to cast a bigger vote next year?

Mr. Esmonde

Surely one would be dealing with the date of the proposed amalgamation?

Mr. Moore

No before amalgamation transpires. Amalgamation is in sight. Certain people might have a desire to have the union office situated in a certain place. Could those people increase their membership and establish that they had a majority to ensure that the office was sited in Limerick, Cork, Galway, Belfast or somewhere else?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is the actual vote recorded. For example, the union wishes to transfer its engagements. The vote takes place there by a majority. Whether the majority is ten or 100,000 does not alter the situation we are after in this legislation.

Mr. Moore

If it was a card vote and if it was decided today for union A to have 10,000 members, how could that be altered up or down? Supposing that union membership increased tremendously coming near amalgamation. Can it not be defined that a union must have a certain membership on a certain date?

Mr. Esmonde

Surely it would have to be the date of the vote according to the definition of membership?

Mr. Moore

Let us take the case of the miners' union in Great Britain.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I know the Deputy is talking about a general difficulty often referred to in union votes when there have been queries raised about the actual accuracy of a union where the vote takes place under the auspices of a union. But in regard to the question we are discussing here criteria are laid down both for membership and procedure of voting in this legislation. There is ample provision also for any complaints advanced by any member who does not believe that the procedures were carried out.

There are built-in guarantees in this measure on the job and function of the legislation which is to ensure that it facilitates those organisations and unions who wish to come together. There are ample guarantees in the legislation to ensure that no injustice occurs. The Deputy is referring to general difficulties within unions on industrial matters leading to strikes but this legislation does not deal with that problem.

Mr. Moore

Basically it does but perhaps not specifically.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn? It has been met by the Minister.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We do not see the need for amendment No. 3. Surely amendment No. 13 in my name supercedes the amendment in the name of the Deputy? I gather this is so from the Deputy's remarks.

Mr. Dowling

It is a question of the acceptance of the principle.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Perhaps the Chair will permit me to say something about the point of amendment No. 13?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, they are being discussed together. Amendments Nos. 13, 16, and 17 are consequential.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The major portion of amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are technical consequences of amendment No. 13. The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to provide that British based unions—the unions we are discussing—may not hold or be granted negotiation licences unless there is an executive resident in this State or in Northern Ireland with power to make decisions of an industrial or political nature arising out of the economic and political conditions of this State or Northern Ireland which do not affect members resident outside.

Deputy Dowling said he was anxious that there would be such a provision in the legislation and that is true. I do not think that anyone who has looked at the situation in recent years has been happy with it. Most people have expressed a desire that we should have greater control within Ireland, either North or South, of trade union affairs by Irishmen. This legislation is a first and necessary step in that direction. I am glad to say it has had the assent and agreement of the trade unions in its formulation. We have sought to put in legislative form the provision of Article 2 (b) (ii) of the Constitution of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That provision requires in respect of foreign-based unions that are affiliated to the congress that:

The Trade Union shall provide that decisions on matters of an industrial or political nature which arise out of and are in connection with the internal economic and political conditions in Ireland and are of direct concern to Irish members only shall be considered and decided upon by Irish members provided that the decisions shall have due regard to and shall not prejudice the position of members outside Ireland. A delegate Conference of Irish members or an Irish Committee elected by the Irish membership shall make such decisions.

When this legislation was before the House on a previous occasion I remarked on the general position regarding the multiplicity of unions throughout the country. We have almost 400,000 workers who are organised in approximately 100 separate trade unions in Ireland in comparison with West Germany, where their trade union conference represents almost 6½ million workers who are organised in 16 large industrial unions; in Denmark, where 56 trade unions cater for nearly 1 million workers; in Holland, where 64 unions represent 1½ million workers. I pointed out that the multiplicity of unions had contributed to problems in Ireland, that the 1973 report of the ICTU showed that their disputes committees had to deal with 23 inter-union disputes. Obviously the situation needed to be dealt with. In the past year there have been certain difficult disputes whose resolution was not assisted because the members were in different trade unions. At the very least one might say there was an inter-union aspect to the difficulties associated with the disputes. This is why at the heart of this legislation there is the requirement in amendment No. 13 that some executive functions are controlled in Ireland.

In the 18 foreign-based unions in the Thirty-two Counties there is a combined membership of 170,000 members affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; they belong to unions where the executives who have controlling functions are in Britain. Under existing trade union legislation these unions are merely required for the purposes of holding negotiation licences to:

have and maintain an office within the State or shall from time to time as occasion requires give notice in writing to the Minister of the name of a person ordinarily resident in the State whom it considers suitable for accepting service of documents on its behalf.

That is not a satisfactory situation. With regard to all legislation in my area, a great deal of time is consumed in discussions and consultations with the various interests and this legislation was no exception. I continued the discussions we had been having with the trade unions on the desirability of change in this area and, arising from those many months of discussions, we succeeded in getting together the provisions as set out in amendment No. 13. During those discussions with the trade unions it was represented that the statutory obligations of foreign-based unions should be extended so that they would be required to have a decision-taking executive resident in the Thirty-two Counties. This is what the amendment provides.

It is reasonable that British-based unions should have a statutory obligation to have a decision-making executive in Ireland for the following reasons. Persons who take decisions which affect interests of trade union members in such important areas as negotiations regarding pay and conditions in Ireland should be in close and continuous touch with the Irish situation. Where it is the case that members of trade unions in Ireland have not a decision-making body in this country and must depend on the decisions of an executive outside Ireland, there is the danger that such an executive deliberating on matters outside the country with responsibility for general membership, not just confined to Irish members, are unlikely to be totally aware of certain circumstances obtaining in our economic situation. The absence of Irish-based executives with power to make decisions can make for difficulties in negotiations involving foreign-based trade unions.

The change as provided for in amendment No. 13 is not simply something desired by members of this administration. It has been a long-term objective of parties in this House for many years and it is one shared by all Deputies. I anticipate it will have the support of Members on the other side. The amendment in the name of Deputy Dowling would be superseded by amendment No. 13. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are consequential on that amendment.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has referred to foreign-based unions affiliated to congress. Has he considered the position of workers from Italy, France, or Germany who may come here as a result of our membership of the EEC? What will be their position? Will their unions be regarded as having protective rights with regard to their members working here?

How would those emigrant workers fit into the general picture? As the Minister is aware, when workers from this country go to England they must relinquish their membership of the Irish unions and accept membership of British unions before they are allowed work. This is an unsatisfactory situation. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has considered the question of emigrant workers.

We are basically in agreement with the other aspects covered by the Minister. There is the serious defect concerning British-based unions who might not have a decision-making executive here and who might accept less for British workers in industry while at the same time press for higher wages for their workers here. A concentrated effort to that effect could be made from time to time should this change not have taken place. I am glad that the change has occurred but I would like to hear from the Minister regarding what would be the position of emigrant workers who were members of unions other than British-based ones. We are now in a much wider field in so far as workers are concerned and I trust that the Bill will cover this change in an exacting way so as to ensure that we have the type of institutional freedom that is necessary and desirable in relation to our work force.

Mr. Moore

Arising from the Minister's last remarks, I would emphasise that this Bill will not result in any rush of amalgamation of trade unions. It is merely an enabling Bill. If unions wish to amalgamate, they may do so but there is not great encouragement for them in this regard.

The Minister referred to West German workers having a small number of unions for a vast number of workers but it must be remembered that the percentage of Irish workers having trade union membership is much greater than is the case on the Continent. This may stem from the fact that we are a nation of individualists. This Bill is some help to trade unions to amalgamate but it is not an encouragement for them to do so. We are simply saying to them that if they wish to amalgamate the legislation is there but this cannot be regarded as encouraging amalgamation to any great extent. Some years ago there was a move to amalgamate two of the biggest unions in the country. I am a member of one of these and the Minister is a member of the other. However, I have heard nothing about that since. I understand that a wider trade union Bill will be before the House shortly and I trust that that measure will contain provisions that would encourage amalgamation of trade unions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from what is before the House.

Mr. Moore

I was referring to remarks made by the Minister. Instead of saying merely to the unions that they may amalgamate if they wish, we must go further and tell them that we want them to amalgamate and reduce the number of unions from 93 to a more feasible number.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is outside the scope of the amendment.

Mr. Wyse

We all appreciate what the Minister is endeavouring to do in this Bill but I do not think he is going far enough. I maintain that a British-based union can give executive powers to an Irish union while, at the same time, insisting that the Irish union would consult at all times with the British-based union. In that way they would be complying with the legislation although our people would have to talk with them before any decision was made. All of us are anxious that our trade unions amalgamate so as to limit the number in so far as possible but as I see it the British-based trade unions will have the last word at all times. I am sure the Minister can see the weakness in this regard.

Mr. Esmonde

I have listened carefully to Deputy Wyse but surely we are dealing with the question of amalgamation. If a decision is made to amalgamate, that amalgamation will take place. Deputy Dowling has mentioned other matters which are not quite relevant to amalgamation. We cannot force people to come together. It has been a principle of Irish trade union law that everything is done by concensus of agreement. If we introduce a little of what occurs on the Continent—a sort of legislative sanction to force people along the way— we would be acting contrary to the principle of Irish trade union law.

We must remember that this section is an enabling one for the purpose of finding an area of authority for a party that can agree when a decision must be made in relation to amalgamation. That should not be lost sight of. This is a Bill to facilitate amalgamation not to force mergers or amalgamations. Amalgamations must be voluntary and must emanate from the unions and their members. The Minister has gone as far as he can in this regard. Other matters of trade union law are for other types of legislation.

Mr. Wyse

The Deputy will agree that there should be incentives to amalgamate.

Mr. Esmonde

I appreciate what the Deputy has in mind and I can see the problem but we cannot force unions into a position of agreement. This is virtually a machinery Bill with certain safeguards.

Mr. Moore

Surely more encouragement could be given in the Bill to trade unions to amalgamate.

Mr. Esmonde

That has been said by a number of people in the House. It was said by the Minister in introducing the Second Stage. The message is clear to the country and to the trade union movement.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What one must understand in this whole area is that it is not possible to use force in the interests of bringing about amalgamation. It is a contradiction to think that a unity of association can be achieved by using some kind of coercive legislation. In the whole area of industrial relations this is one of the difficulties that one encounters in seeking the comprehension of those interests in the area. It is not possible to use legislation to remove certain unpleasant features in this area. It is not possible to outlaw strikes. We have seen that that is neither practical nor desirable. It is not possible to enact legislation to force unions to come together because, under our Constitution, we are given the right to choose our associates and no one can force us to choose our associates. If Irishmen prefer to be members of a union no law will force them into association with another group with whom they do not wish to be associated. Therefore, the Bill has that deficiency as has any legislation in this area in that respect. All we may do is to encourage and to ensure that the law in itself is not an impediment to greater associaciv tion between disparate groups and groups now in separate organisations.

I share Deputy Moore's disappointment that there has not been a greater coming together of unions based in Ireland and dealing with the same category of workers. Despite efforts in the past at achieving common organisation, this has not been achieved. Is there a lack of encouragement here? I suggest there is not. In section 14 of the Bill we are providing for full financial aid and consultancy to unions seeking amalgamation. We cover all legal costs. This is solid encouragement to those unions who might be considering amalgamation or the transfer of engagements but who might lack the financial resources to consider the feasibility of such moves.

In this legislation we actually underwrite the cost of hiring a consultant to the executive of a union which might be considering the advantages of amalgamation or transfer of functions with another organisation. There is no cost whatever involved. We also cover any legal costs and there is an undertaking to cover any residual consequences from such amalgamation or transfer of engagements.

We cannot pass any legislation here which would drive a wedge between an organisation in Ireland which belongs to an international organisation or one with headquarters covering the entire membership based in Britain and its present body. All we seek is that there shall be an executive here with decision-making powers on matters concerning the membership in Ireland. It is not possible for us to drive such a wedge. Anybody considering it would realise it would have no chance of success and would defeat the whole purpose of seeking a voluntary coming together of unions.

Deputy Dowling raised the question of workers from other states in the Economic Community coming here to work. I think Deputy Esmonde made the same point: that if such workers were anxious to work in Ireland they would have to comply with the provisions of legislation here. Also, the trade union centre here is affiliated to the trade union movement in Europe and obviously if there is any development regarding workers coming from abroad the trade union centre here would conform to practices arranged in concert with the other trade union centres in Europe. It is not visualised that there is anything in this legislation which is in conflict with any obligations arising from EEC membership nor do I foresee any difficulties arising, at least in the short term, on the matters raised by Deputy Dowling.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to make perfectly clear that there is no desire on our part to force mergers. This must be a voluntary effort. The Minister is quite right in saying that we cannot legislate people into mergers. We desire to ensure that the Minister make means available for mergers to take place because this in itself is an encouragement to mergers. Funds are available that were not available in the past. We know of the unhappy state of affairs when mergers did take place in the past, particularly in the case of NEETU when much of the finances were eaten up by court costs. There was no financial incentive for other unions to proceed and this has probably been an impediment to mergers. There is provision in the Bill for financial assistance. This makes the situation easier and will give food for thought for those wishing to amalgamate and join larger unions offering greater facilities, educational and otherwise.

It might have been gathered from the Minister or from Deputy Esmonde that there was a desire on our part to enforce mergers. There is no such desire but we do desire to have means available to encourage mergers. Legislation cannot be a means of direction in this field. I am certain that, with the common sense of workers and union officials and the overall situation regarding availability of services in the future and with the everchanging situation in Europe in regard to working conditions, training, technical and educational facilities, there will be an incentive now that has been lacking for some time.

Mr. Moore

The Minister admits his disappointment that there have been so few mergers. My belief is that the Bill will help somewhat but it will not be a Mogna Carta for unions willing to amalgamate. Deputy Dowling is right in saying there can be no suggestion of compulsion in getting unions to amalgamate. That is neither possible nor desirable.

Have we gone far enough or as far as we can with inducements to unions to amalgamate. We accept the principle that amalgamation is good and this Bill provides the framework for a slight degree of encouragement, but we cannot expect workers to see in the Bill a great new instrument for amalgamation. It is not that, and the workers will see this very quickly and because of the strength of the trade unions they do not fear any effort by the State to do a certain thing. Any talk of compulsion is just foolish. We must be fair to the unions and the workers and say: "This Bill is a pale instrument which lays down certain basic conditions for amalgamation." Let us accept the Bill and not go on thinking that we are passing momentous legislation when in fact we are not.

If the results when the Bill becomes an Act are disappointing let us not be despondent because it is a very light Bill and we do not expect it to accomplish what we want to see, the amalgamation of many unions. The unions themselves desire this but I see little here which would encourage any union to amalgamate. The Minister is right in saying that the State will bear the cost of an amalgamation on certain lines but let us not suggest or give colour to any talk of compulsion. Anybody with any grey matter will know this is not envisaged and would be undesirable. At the same time let us be true to ourselves and to the trade unions by not suggesting that this is a fine piece of legislation which will result in a rush of amalgamations. That is not so. Let us recognise the deficiencies in the Bill and try to improve it as we go along.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is not my purpose in regard to legislation of this kind to indulge in back-patting but for the Deputy's information, never in the history of the State have we attempted any legislation in this area. This is the first such piece of legislation. I have been almost ten years in the House and in that time we have not succeeded in putting even what little legislation there is here on the books. And this is not little in its practical consequences. I am aware of many unions that up to now have been deterred from amalgamation by the state of the law. The complications involved prevented action in this direction.

Far from agreeing with Deputy Moore I would say that the nature of the problem before us does not permit us to pass simple legislation forcing people to come together but I would point out to him, just for the record as a matter of strict historical fact, that it was in 1917 that the last piece of legislation in this area was passed. No such legislation was passed in the history of this State and certainly in the past ten years there was no successful attempt to move along those lines. This is the first legislation dealing with the problem and it is not fair of the Deputy to dismiss it as a matter of no consequence. I hope for a good deal of progress in the difficult area of amalgamation and transfer of engagements on the part of unions that I know from discussions with smaller unions anxious to come together—and I have had many such discussions—that they will in fact consider the situation and the provisions of this legislation will help them in this matter.

Mr. Wyse

The Minister knows what prevented amalgamation over the years. It was the financial aspect. People felt that better pensions and better protection were given from British-based unions but we all know that it was the financial aspect rather than anything else that prevented amalgamation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We need not go into that. There were very difficult legal problems involving a great deal of litigation for the union desiring the amalgamation. If any section or member of the union had a case for the High Court based on the most trivial of reasons the whole matter could be held up and the officers could be held up for damages or any other consequences arising out of it. It would be a very courageous man indeed who could have considered realistically the coming together of two unions up to this legislation.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister must agree that there has been a change in attitudes in relation to mergers in the reasonably recent past. The change in materials and the fact that certain trades were regarded as dying trades meant that modification was necessary and changes in union membership were necessary. It is unfair to go back to 1913 and to 1871 and to say that no legislation was enacted since then. There has been a change in attitudes in recent times and there is now a more enlightened view of the necessity to merge. Some of the unions here provide an excellent service for their members because they are large unions and have financial resources which make it possible for them to provide educational, technical and various types of training and facilities. It is only in recent times they have been able to offer those services. Perhaps in ten years' time people will say that the Act of 1974 was a useless instrument and that nothing has happened since 1974. There will be a change in the atmosphere in the future that will necessitate the updating of our legislation. Legislation must always keep pace with the change in attitudes in the community.

Blame-placing or suggestion that a prolonged period has passed and there has been no legislation solve nothing. The demand is here now and there will be a demand in the future for a different type of legislation. When that time comes people will probably say that we were inactive for a considerable period but that is not the case. We must judge the situation as it is at the moment. We now have synthetic fibres and other new materials. We have seen the change from tinsmith to coppersmith to sheet-metal worker. Various trades have changed over the years. Unions have changed their names for this reason. Nobody is called a tinsmith any more. They are all sheet-metal workers because a wider range of materials has been developed. While we welcome this legislation as a step forward it is unfair to suggest that over a long period nothing has been done. It is when the demand comes that one must meet it. If the Minister is in government for 20 years, in 20 years' time there will be a demand for the updating of legislation to meet the changes at that time.

I thought it rather peculiar that the Minister should refer to Deputy Moore's statement in the manner in which he did. We are all here to assist and to ensure that the legislation is as good as it is possible to make it. Perhaps some of us think it is weak, that there should be more encouragement in it. Possibly we will have amendments on the Report Stage. The Minister has given us the views of the trade unions with which he has consulted over a period in relation to the Bill. On Report Stage we can examine the Bill in greater depth and perhaps provide additional stimulants so that mergers can more freely take place. We must all work together for the betterment of the workers, which is the main factor. Blame-placing is no solution to the problem.

The NEETU affair has brought to a head the defects in our legislation. Many other unions who had their eyes on mergers may now be prompted to move forward seeing that there are financial provisions. The financial aspect was the major impediment in the past. An immense amount of work must be done before a merger takes place. Many years of difficult and trying conferences take place. There is great expense involved in travelling to conferences, in having printing done and a variety of other things. It is weak unions that would tend to merge and they just could not afford it. I agree with the people who say that finance was the vital factor. If a weaker union feels its resources will be sapped up in trying to amalgamate it is a non-starter.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

I have allowed a certain amount of latitude but the Deputy must come back to the amendments.

Mr. Dowling

I have made my point in regard to changing attitudes. This is what motivates Ministers, Governments and individuals.

Mr. Esmonde

Deputy Dowling mentioned the expense. The Minister has referred to section 14. There is a provision to deal with that so that does not stand in the way. I know there is a lot of work involved in a merger but there is clear provision for it in section 14. That is as far as any Minister can be expected to go. I fully appreciate Deputy Dowling's point about the changing circumstances but over 50 years have passed since the last piece of legislation and it did not deal with mergers or amalgamations and it did nothing to make provision to ease the merger or amalgamation. I can fairly speak having read that Act and having had to consider the problems under a 1917 Act where difficulties have arisen. The Minister has spoken from the point of view of trade unionism. I am speaking from a professional point of view. I have been involved in these problems.

This is what you might call a practical Bill to get over these difficulties. As Deputy Dowling said, times change and there is a demand for this. There is an amount of thinking on these lines at the moment because of the involvement of unions in technical work, and the smaller unions are not able to provide the service for their members.

We have this difficulty here of possibly an undue number of people who are members of foreign-based unions. That is natural enough from our past history. People may have left here as unskilled workers and emigrated to England, got their qualifications in their trade and eventually found their way back here—thank God for that, it is the ambition of most people leaving the country to come back and earn their livelihood here. However, they joined a union in England and naturally retain their membership of that union. The purpose of this Bill is to try to facilitate such unions acting in this country to merge from an Irish point of view, in the Irish context, and I think there is agreement in this House to get on with that and to provide the facilities for it.

Mr. Moore

We must get it on the record that compulsion was first mentioned by the Minister. He takes the legislators to task because in 57 years we did not have any legislation on this matter. Having waited so long, while this Bill is a help, it is not, perhaps, the legislation that was worth waiting 57 years for. Maybe it was not necessary in previous years because 57 years ago we did not have so many unions or so many industrial or commercial workers. When the trade unions see this Bill when it is enacted and if it does not result in any great moves towards amalgamation, do not blame the unions for it but blame the Minister as the instrument of this legislature which has not produced effective legislation to encourage more amalgamations of unions. The whole principle of the Bill is to encourage them to do so. If it fails we will have to examine where it fails and not blame the unions for being uncooperative. If we make it attractive enough for the unions, they will amalgamate and I hold this Bill is not sufficiently attractive to have them amalgamate in any great numbers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert a new paragraph as follows:

"(d) voting shall be supervised by an officer from the Office of the Registrar, nominated for that purpose by the Registrar".

This is weak section to which we have put down two amendments and the Minister one. The section deals with the question of the amalgamation of transfers and the question of a ballot. If the registrar is to have the powers—and he has fairly substantial powers—given to him in the Bill, then we believe the ballot should be supervised by an independent body. If there is a general desire that the unions should come together, then there can be no objection to an independent body supervising the ballot.

Deputy Moore has referred to a recent ballot in which the number of votes was greater than anticipated. Possibly the union official supervising the ballot would not be in favour of the merger and might influence the vote to some degree. This has happened in the past. At a meeting I attended one of the members was able, by a number of devices, to influence the ballot. On one occasion when I was contesting a particular post, I was sent to address members at a particular centre at a time when it was known that few of the members would be available. The other candidate was sent on the day the ballot papers on which members were voting were available. Therefore, influence can be wielded by officials of the union and it is important that we should take the responsibility for this important decision away and put it in the hands of an independent body. We have an additional amendment here which says:

Not less than seven days before voting on the resolution begins, the unions shall cause to be published in the daily morning papers notice of the holding of the vote.

This is desirable particularly in the engineering and maintenance unions where workers might be on duty down the country for periods of three to six weeks. They might have a direct interest——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Governey)

This is amendment No. 4.

Mr. Dowling

Are we taking all these amendments together?

Acting Chairman

I thought they were separate.

Mr. Dowling

I could go deeper into this, but the Minister is probably well aware of the views I have expressed and probably knows as well as I do how ballots can be manipulated. I in no way want to take away from the honesty of union officials but there are some union officials just as there are politicians who might seek to use undue influence. I want to ensure that no finger can be pointed at one section or another, and that is why I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no legislation that can prevent people being influenced in how they should vote, It is their democratic right that people should be free to do that. However, what we sought to do in this legislation is to write in certain criteria which must be complied with in the actual voting. If they are not complied with there is provision for complaints to be made to the registrar. If the registrar agrees there are grounds for the complaints, then the voting is invalidated. The present legislation governing amalgamations does not provide for the manner in which votes on amalgamation are to be taken.

We have laid down clearly defined procedures in section 3 (1). It sets out the conditions applying to the manner of voting on resolutions to amalgamate or to transfer engagements. Every member of the union must be entitled to vote without improper pressure or interference from any party. The voting must be by way of written ballot and the union must take all reasonable steps to ensure that at least seven days before voting every member receives a notice which complies with the conditions set out in subsection (2) of the section. Subsection (2) sets out the full details of the relevant instrument, where copies of the instrument may be inspected and comply with any regulations under this Act. All these requirements must be fulfilled and the member voting will be fully informed as to what is involved seven days before the vote takes place. Everything reasonably possible will be done to ensure that those participating in the vote know all the facts.

With all due respect, I cannot see the need in those circumstances for Deputy Dowling's amendment. The implication in having an official from the Registry of Friendly Societies present at the vote is that we do not trust those conducting the vote and those voting and that would certainly not be helpful from the point of view of the objectives sought by this legislation, especially when one considers the criteria laid down and the avenues open for complaint by anybody dissatisfied. In any case, it is not clear what precise action such an official could take. Presumably all that could be done would be to refuse to register the instrument of amalgamation or transfer. That would happen in any case if a member of the trade union complained to the Registrar of Friendly Societies that voting had not taken place in accordance with the act.

Amalgamation or transfer must be by way of written ballot—I emphasise that—and, in those circumstances, the possibility of abuse will be considerably reduced. If Deputy Dowling looks again at his amendment in the light of what I have said I do not think he will find it necessary to push this particular amendment.

Mr. Dowling

But if the official from the office of the Registrar of Friendly societies were present there would be no need to go back to him and report any abuse because the official would either be satisfied or dissatisfied with the ballot. The necessity to declare the ballot invalid would not exist and, remember, a second ballot is always much more difficult than the first.

Mr. M. O'Leary

All those concerned in the voting will be, in effect, supervisors of the ballot. It will not be just one official, as the Deputy's amendment suggests. Every voter is a supervisor to ensure the ballot is carried out according to the law. That is a better procedure because we transform the voters into custodians of the legislation.

Mr. Moore

Under section 3 (1) (b) I notice there is nothing about a secret ballot. Is that a deliberate omission?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Section 3 (1) (c) is a secret ballot.

Mr. Moore

Agreed, but there is a demand for secret ballots in many cases. Surely that should be clearly provided.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Section 3 (1) (c) ensures the secrecy of the ballot.

Mr. Moore

It does not. Very often a man will mark a paper and tell the crowd how he voted.

Mr. Esmonde

I think there is an analogy with another group. One might have a vote on a merger between two companies and I do not think it is stated that it has to be by secret ballot. It is the individuals who will be involved in voting on this merger and the unions have their own rules. I think it is wrong for this House to interfere too much in the domestic arrangements of trade unions involved in mergers.

Mr. Moore

Why have any legislation at all then if that is the attitude?

Mr. Esmonde

A member might not be in the country and this provides for postal voting.

Mr. Moore

Postal voting is another matter. Does the Minister not think it would be a good thing to provide for a secret ballot?

Mr. M. O'Leary

My intention is that it should be secret. To ensure there is no possibility for doubt that it is other than secret I shall consider the position between now and Report Stage. I think it is covered legally, but I shall consider it again.

Mr. Wyse

Would the Minister also consider the fact that trade unions have their own legal advisers and they should be empowered to be present at these ballots?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is nothing to prevent that.

Mr. Wyse

There is no mention made of it here and it should be put in as an encouragement to trade unions to have their own legal advisers present.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Advice to unions about their staffing arrangements would be another day's work.

Mr. Dowling

In view of the Minister's assurance that there will be a secret ballot and that he will consider the position between now and Report Stage, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 22 and 23, to insert a new paragraph as follows:

"(e) not less than seven days before voting on the resolution begins, the union shall cause to be published in the daily morning newspapers notice of the holding of the vote".

This is a very desirable amendment. If people are working away from their homes seven days will not be adequate notice. Contact may be very difficult. Maintenance workers and people working on installations are forever moving around from one place to another. The original letter will go to the recipient's home address from which it will be redirected to his last home address and, from there, it will have to be sent on to a forwarding address. A considerable period could elapse. A union which wants to take reasonable steps to ensure each member entitled to vote has a vote will want at least seven days in which to notify members through the medium of the daily newspapers of the holding of the vote. I think the amendment is very reasonable because it will give members an opportunity of learning from the daily newspapers that a merger is taking place and there will be a vote; each member involved could then make the necessary arrangements. I am sure the Minister is aware of the difficulties involved for people who are out of town. A union member could be on circuit, as it were, and seven days may not be enough. It is generally accepted now in trade union circles that they put a notice in the papers indicating that a meeting of such a branch will be held to discuss the national wage agreement or some other wage agreement. There is nothing new in this.

The amendment would give that extra amount of assistance to the person who is working out of town and who desires to vote. If the notice is sent to a forwarding address, it may not arrive until after the ballot is over. I do not suggest that there would be a desire to ensure that the person would not vote, but we must take all reasonable steps to ensure that he knows what is happening. A merger is a very important step and his vote might decide the balance one way or the other. A normal procedure which has been followed in recent times should be adopted and should be written into the Bill so that the notice will appear in the daily papers.

Mr. Esmonde

There might be undue publicity which the union members might not care for. The Minister has put down amendment No. 6 to ensure that section 3 (1) (d) is strictly complied with. It proposes to impose a duty on the registrar. I see the Deputy's point.

Mr. Dowling

A merger is one of the major steps which a union can take. It will be known for many months in advance and possibly for years in advance that a merger is on the books.

Mr. Esmonde

Would the Deputy care for a bidding situation to arise?

Mr. Dowling

If members get ballot papers they will vote. It is wrong to disenfranchise somebody because of his employment.

Mr. Esmonde

I agree, but does not section 3 (1) (d) deal with that and the Minister has put down amendment No. 6?

Mr. Dowling

It does not, no. It is a very minor matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I believe that the proposals in the Bill are stringent enough to ensure that every member of a trade union who is entitled to vote will receive detailed notice of the ballot under section 3. That seems to be a pretty secure guarantee that every member will be fully informed before the vote takes place. As the Deputy rightly says, it is not a matter of any great moment whether we add in the additional precaution of a notice in the papers. It depends on whether you think people read notices in the papers. I tend to think they do not. More attention is paid to a letter which sets out all the details of the voting involved.

There are other considerations also. If the Deputy is absolutely insistent on the necessity for having a notice in the papers, I will give consideration to it on Report Stage. I believe there are ample guarantees in the Bill but, if the Deputy still feels that a notice in the papers is called for, I will give consideration to that.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has good intentions. I worked with a concern where we moved from one job to another. How many people were not aware of what was happening in trade union circles?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I accept the amendment.

Mr. Dowling

The notice in the papers is the only notice some people get of meetings.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will consider the amendment on Report Stage.

Mr. Dowling

Does the Minister accept the amendment?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Does the Deputy want me to accept it or to consider it on Report Stage?

Mr. Dowling

If the Minister accepted it now he would not have to consider it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are nothing on this side of the House if not reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(2) Before a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer is voted on by the members of a trade union, the trade union shall satisfy the Registrar that the steps it proposes to take comply with subsection (1) (d)."

As originally drafted, the Bill provided in section 3 (1) (d) that the union should take all reasonable steps to ensure that not less than seven days before the voting on an amalgamation or transfer every member of the union received a copy of the notice in writing, complying with subsection (2). It was represented to us at our meetings with the trade unions that it was possible that those who were, for one reason or another, opposed to the amalgamation and who might, in normal circumstances, be a minority within the union concerned, might take refuge in the vagueness of words "all reasonable steps" in any later legal objections they had to the process of amalgamation.

It was also represented to us that there could be protracted court cases based on what constituted "all reasonable steps". This amendment removes that possibility because it provides that reasonable steps will be approved in advance by the registrar. It goes some way towards meeting the point about the powers of the registrar raised by Deputy Dowling on previous amendments. Once more we are giving the registrar powers before the ballot is taken to arbitrate and decide on what are "reasonable steps". This is a guarantee, so far as the law can provide it, that a just decision will be reached.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Dowling

I move amendment No. 7:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), the amalgamating unions shall have the right to agree upon the minimum number of votes which must be recorded to enable a resolution to be passed."

Section 5 provides:

Where a vote is taken by a trade union on a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer, a simple majority of the votes recorded shall be sufficient to pass the resolution notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union.

We feel this is very weak and could be open to abuse—"a simple majority of the votes recorded". There should be some minimum vote. We generally tend to think of all the workers in a factory being available but the availability of personnel is another factor. There should be some means of determining what the majority should be rather than providing for a simple majority. If other people were absent for one reason or another, three people could make a decision. That is undesirable. I do not hold with the previous situation in which 50 per cent had to vote and there had to be a 20 per cent majority. Somewhere in between there must be a solution to this problem.

As I said, a merger is probably the most important step that a union can take. We do not want to give an advantage to small groups who are available. The availability of personnel to vote is the important thing. The provision about 50 per cent was more reasonable, unreasonable as it was. The Minister should consider making provision for something more than a simple majority. There must be some means of determining what is reasonable. Where a situation can be contrived a simple majority is not sufficient. A major step such as a merger requires more than a simple majority. While abuses can take place, and do take place, and probably will take place in the future we must guard against these abuses.

In the section we must examine in some depth the situations which can and might develop. Although this may never happen we are leaving it open to a small group of people who may be present when the ballot is taking place and their votes will have greater weight.

I worked in a workshop where 90 per cent of the personnel would be absent for periods of four, five or six weeks. At that time, there might be only two or three out of 30 or 40 members available for union meetings. This is undesirable. Those who are for or against such a proposal would know of the situation and they could contrive to take advantage of the situation. Their votes would then be weighted. I should like to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Section 5 provides that a simple majority of the votes recorded shall be sufficient to pass the resolution notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union. Under existing legislation before an amalgamation or transfer can be approved the votes of at least 50 per cent of the members entitled to vote must be recorded. Those in favour must exceed those against by 20 per cent or more. Clearly this situation makes amalgamations and transfers exceedingly difficult, particularly in the case of a big union amalgamating with a small union. This section, without the amendment, will remove this difficulty while at the same time protecting the interest of members by ensuring that they receive adequate and detailed notice of a ballot on amalgamation or transfer.

Deputy Dowling's amendment would give the trade unions concerned the right to specify a minimum number of people who must actually vote before a resolution approving the amalgamation may be carried. It does not leave much to the imagination to visualise what difficulties this would involve for the unions wishing to amalgamate. Where there is a small entrenched minority in any union, they could create a great deal of delay and trouble by insisting on an impractical percentage to carry an agreement about the transfer or amalgamation.

I ask Deputy Dowling not to press this amendment. The Act ensures that every member entitled to vote will receive notice of the vote. There is always the difficulty in democratic elections that people will not turn up to vote. That is a continuing difficulty and I do not see any solution to it. We could compel them to vote but that would not be in the traditions of this country. When looking at voting for amalgamation and transfer, there is a danger that we would confuse the voting procedures on this occasion with voting procedures when it comes to dispute situations.

It is unlikely that a transfer or amalgamation could be arranged at relatively short notice. The preparations involved would take many months. As Deputy Dowling knows, in some cases it has taken too many years. It is extremely unlikely that members will be unaware of such an event taking place. It is also unlikely that it will not have been discussed by members at all levels or that anyone who has an interest in such a vote will stay away. The Bill guarantees that everybody involved will be informed beforehand of the nature of the decisions to be taken. If, however, we saddle ourselves with extra burdens we will delay the whole process and place a very unwelcome burden on the unions wanting amalgamation or transfer. A simple majority with a guarantee written in of full information beforehand, and recourse to complain to the registrar where these conditions are not complied with, seems ample assurance that democratic procedures will be carried through. I ask Deputy Dowling to reconsider his amendment. I believe the section as it stands meets his requirements.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Dowling put his finger on a very sensitive point, but I appreciate the difficulty facing the Minister. Let us take the example of the Seamen's Union. The fortuitous arrival of a ship on voting day could decide which way the ballot would go. When the Minister is speaking of a simple majority might I suggest that he fix a figure of, say, 50 members who shall vote or else there is no vote. Then it could be carried by 24 or 26 votes. That would satisfy the legal requirements of this Act.

Deputy Dowling's point needs further consideration. If for some reason an amalgamation is carried by a very small vote, that amalgamation would not have the backing of the members of either union involved. The Minister might bring in a compromise on the next Stage incorporating Deputy Dowling's point. I admit I do not know how it can be done, but I am sure there must be some way to do it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Bill provides that members must get at least seven days' notice. A member would have grounds for complaint to the registrar as to the invalidity of the vote which takes place if this requirement is not carried through. Deputy Moore's example of the Seamen's Union is covered in the legislation.

Mr. Moore

The Minister knows from experience how low a poll may be in a union ballot. Even for a wage claim a very small proportion of people vote. This is unfortunate, but it is true.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no means in law whereby we can legislate into existence interest and commitment if they do not exist. If there is not the will to come to a meeting, no law passed here will ensure a change in that state of affairs. We cannot arbitrarily decide that this figure is needed for a decision to have validity in terms of engagement of transfer. We must abide by the majority criteria, taking into account the requirement of full information being available beforehand to all eligible to take part in the ballot. That covers Deputies' misgivings that an unrepresentative minority could make a decision in a matter of such consequence.

There is, of course, the actual situation we are dealing with: that of amalgamation or transfer, where a group of people in an association decide to come together with a group in another association. This is not a matter that could be decided in a relatively short time, unlike the situation that obtains when it comes to disputes or wage negotiations. It would be a matter for long consideration in most cases and therefore it would be unlikely that those who turned up to the meeting would be unrepresentative of the overall opinion within the association taking the vote.

Mr. Wyse

I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation. My experience of trade union meetings is that very few attend, even to deal with a wage agreement. Seven days' notice will be given to a member and if such a member is not prepared to face up to his obligations I do not think we should compel a union to hold up business. I am satisfied with the seven days' notice.

Mr. Dowling

It should be remembered that there are a number of small unions and it is these unions that will be involved in mergers. There should be some protection for such unions. There is no provision for persons such as commercial travellers, lighthouse keepers or seamen, who would be away from home for up to one month, to have a postal vote. Can any provision be made for a postal vote for such people?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is provision for a written ballot, in section 3 (1) (c).

Mr. Dowling

I understood that meant a secret ballot. In my view the Minister will have to write into this section the matter of postal votes. I am thinking of small unions where there are only 30 people actually involved.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Under that subsection it would follow that a postal vote would be equally valid.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister include that on Report Stage?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Legal advisers tell us that it is not necessary because this subsection states that a postal ballot is totally adequate.

Mr. Dowling

But seven days' notice could not be sufficient for a person who is away from home for up to one month. If the Bill contained facilities whereby a person could cast a postal vote such people as lighthouse keepers and seamen could then vote.

Mr. M. O'Leary

While it does not appear in written form in this Bill, the legal advice given to me is that subsection (1) (c) is that provision, that a postal vote is acceptable.

Mr. Dowling

If that is so, the whole picture is altered. In that event seven days' notice is unreasonable. It should be up to 21 days' notice to give a person an opportunity of applying for a postal vote. One would not necessarily receive a postal vote within seven days after receiving notice from the union. There is nothing in the Bill that makes provision for the application of a postal vote and in my view the subsection referred to by the Minister concerns those attending the meeting. It also states that the ballot will be supervised in accordance with the rules laid down by the registrar.

It would be a very unhappy merger if by some device a merger was carried by a single vote against the wishes of the greater number of personnel who would not have the opportunity of expressing their views through the ballot box. A postal vote would be a means of eliminating some of the problems that may arise. I ask the Minister to include postal votes and extend the seven-day period. If the provision for postal votes was included it would not be possible for some people to cast their votes with the seven-day limit. I accept that it could not be stretched far enough to suit everyone but some improvement could be made.

Mr. Esmonde

Section 3 (1) (d), and amendment No. 6, surely make certain that the person gets notice. The registrar must be satisfied that the section is complied with. How far does the Deputy want the Minister to go?

Mr. Dowling

To me this subsection means the marking of a ballot paper at a union meeting.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What Deputy Dowling is seeking is already in the legislation. We are informed of this by our legal advisers. Otherwise we would have had the requirement of "postal" written in. It is regarded as superfluous.

A person must be informed seven days before and if that is not carried through he has grounds for complaint. If his complaint is substantiated presumably the registrar would declare the vote to be invalid. If a person can say that he received a notice but that he is constrained, because of his work, from taking part in the ballot he would have a case for the registrar. I hold that the legislation meets the problems posed by the Deputy. It covers all the cases he has referred to.

I have already undertaken that in section 3 (1) (c), in case there is any doubt, the word "secret" will be added on Report Stage. I am assured that there is no need to add "postal". Therefore the necessity does not arise for longer notice in terms of the postal ballot.

Mr. Esmonde

It is not necessarily seven days; that is the minimum period.

Mr. Dowling

This amendment would not be necessary if it was stated that postal votes were available for personnel working away from home for long periods. There is no such provision in the Bill, irrespective of what the Minister's legal advisers say. Common sense dictates that there must be a special section dealing with postal votes, which are different from a vote at a union meeting.

I would go so far as to suggest to the Minister that he should examine this and take into consideration also personnel who might be ill in hospital, so that they could record their vote and have a say in the merger. There might be people in hospital, in convalescent homes and other places who might wish to avail of the opportunity of participating. In fact there might arise the question of people on holiday if, for some reason, a union decided to hold a ballot during, say, the first or second week of August knowing that a very small number of personnel would be available and when the outcome could be a very unhappy one as a result of a small minority wanting a merger while the majority did not.

We must make special provision in the Bill under which people can apply for a postal vote. It might well happen that a person would want to record his vote by post for a variety of reasons rather than attend a union meeting and that opportunity should be afforded him. I do not hold with the views of the legal advisers that there is adequate provision in the Bill for application for a postal vote, as to who would be entitled to a postal vote and the procedure to be adopted in relation to it, because the ballot would be supervised by somebody. That, to me, would mean a ballot at a union meeting unless some other provision is included in the Bill. If there were provision in the Bill then my amendment would not be necessary because everybody would be afforded the opportunity of voting at a ballot or by postal vote if they so wished. On an important issue like this, I do not feel a person should be debarred from voting if they do not want to attend a meeting. If it is a secret vote it should be capable of being done either way.

Mr. Wyse

There is very little involved here. I agree with Deputy Dowling. Legislation can be very easily misinterpreted by different people. The Minister is learning over now to the legal advisers to confirm his interpretation of it. I see no reason why the Minister would not agree to include in section 3 (c) "in the absence of a member a postal vote will be available".

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would point out that we have already passed section 3 (c). We are on section 5.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister says there is provision for a postal vote in the Bill. I cannot see it.

Mr. Wyse

It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Dowling

I want to ensure that every member has an opportunity of voting. If every member is not to be given an opportunity of voting, then a little more than a simple majority is absolutely necessary. But the amendment would be unnecessary if the Minister inserted words to the effect that a person can apply for a postal vote and that postal votes will be available to personnel in hospital or who are employed away from the place where the ballot may take place.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the Deputy may not be given full weight to the place of the registrar in all of this. He must be satisfied that all of the provisions of the legislation are carried through. The Deputy has made the point that his amendment No. 7, coming under section 5, could be looked at again if something was to be done in the case of amendments to section 3. Because of his anxiety to ensure that there is a genuine majority for amalgamation at any period, Deputy Dowling raises the point of the postal vote. I have already given a categorical assurance that a postal vote is allowable because the vote must be in writing —that that can be used.

I would draw the Deputy's attention also to 3 (1) (b) that every member shall be given a fair opportunity of voting and that the registrar himself—the registrar whom Deputy Dowling was anxious to bring in to the actual supervision of the vote—or a person from his office must be convinced that a fair opportunity to vote was given to every member of the trade union concerned. All of the examples Deputy Dowling gave here of persons who could not be present would not be considered by the registrar or his officials as having been afforded a fair opportunity of voting if such provisions were not implemented. Therefore I would point out to Deputy Dowling that I think amendment No. 7 would not be helpful in reaching the objective I know Deputy Dowling shares with me and with most Deputies—that there should be a fair verdict recorded in the election, in the decision-making process, of the union concerned. We have built into the Bill a guarantee that there will be fairness throughout and there is final recourse to the registrar if there is a feeling that an injustice has been perpetrated. These give us, as far as any legislation can, cast iron guarantees against abuse.

Mr. Moore

Might I suggest to the Minister that the registrar is subject to the provisions of the Bill, just as is anybody else and he can merely interpret or act on what is contained in the Bill. The word "postal" does not appear in the Bill. Therefore it could well be held by a person wishing to contest a registrar's decision to allow a postal vote that there was no such provision in the Bill. The inclusion of the word "postal" would suffice.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have already given a categorical assurance. On Report Stage I will further confirm what I have been saying about the postal aspects of the vote. I would be as anxious as other Deputies to ensure that "postal" was an essential element of voting. It is, on the advice given to me, an integral element of voting for purposes of decision here.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister will know that every trade union member has not got a legal adviser accompanying him to union meetings to interpret legislation. It must be stated in simple language here, understandable both to the unions and their members. I do not believe that the Minister believes that section 3 (1) (c) covers that aspect. That may be the advice given him by his legal advisers but I think it could be argued both ways, because there is no provision in the Bill for a person wishing to obtain a postal vote. There would have to be provision somewhere else in the Bill specifying what a person would have to do to obtain a postal vote. The Minister will agree that it is a little wider than that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

No, there is a requirement that there must be a fair opportunity given to all to vote; there must be seven days' notice given of the time of voting—the member must get that. If these procedures are not carried through the member will have a case for the registrar whose decision, looking into these matters—governed as he is by provisions in legislation— would be that the decision made was invalid because a member, or members, were deprived of an opportunity of voting.

Mr. Dowling

I think the registrar is a bit of whitewash because the Minister knows quite well—as I do and indeed other members of trade unions also—that when dealing with a large trade union the number of people who will not receive ballot papers will be fairly substantial for one reason or another. I have heard members complain at union meetings that they did not receive ballot papers while the secretary maintained he sent them out. This happens time and time again.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I know Deputy Dowling is as anxious as I am to ensure that a genuine verdict is recorded; that however anxious people might be to bring about an amalgamation it must be ensured that that does not occur against the majority feeling of any of the parties involved. I will advert to this question of the postal vote again on Report Stage. I will reassure myself again and hope that, by that Stage, I will be able to reassure Deputy Dowling.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister not give an undertaking now to incorporate, on Report Stage, the provisions necessary to apply for a postal vote? Does it mean in effect, that any member of a union can apply for a postal vote at present?

Mr. M. O'Leary

He can participate by post or otherwise. That is my reading of it at present.

Mr. Dowling

Therefore he need not necessarily attend a union meeting? He can apply for a postal vote?

Mr. M. O'Leary

He can certainly take part by postal vote, yes.

Mr. Dowling

Would the Minister specify that on Report Stage?

Mr. M. O'Leary

All I would say to the Deputy is that on Report Stage I will again refer to this right being inherent in legislation, as it is at present. I would ask the Deputy to suspend his reservations on this matter until Report Stage. I will go back to my advisers to see that this is a castiron part of the legislation. I am totally satisfied that the requirements in the legislation are secure against any abuse with regard to participation of members in voting. We have the safety valve of the registrar and we have the criteria laid down here to ensure that everyone is given a fair opportunity of voting. The requirements are spelled out in section 3. I am convinced there is nothing in the legislation that is in conflict with the requirements of postal balloting if that is desired.

Mr. Dowling

If that is so and if every member has the right to participate by postal vote, would it not be wiser for every member to do this in future? We must ensure that every member gets a ballot paper and has adequate opportunity to return it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I wish to assure the Deputy that all of these measures have been the subject of long and detailed discussions with the unions. It is not a question of a section being inserted that was simply devised by officials of my Department. They are proposals that came from exchanges between people concerned to see improvement in the law in this area and the provisions we have here are a result of those discussions. I am convinced the points raised by the Deputy are covered but I will look at this matter before Report Stage and I hope to reassure the Deputy on the matter.

Mr. Dowling

Will the ballot be by postal vote or will it be a postal vote in addition to a union meeting?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The danger in this area is to be specific on the methodology of the actual voting. I do not think we should be so. The right should be there for those who wish to take part by postal vote, either for reasons of employment or otherwise, but we should not be too specific so long as the criteria with regard to fairness are unmistakable. I think they are.

Mr. Dowling

I realise the Minister is endeavouring to ensure that the ballot will be reasonably protected. However amendment No. 7 is evidence of our anxiety to ensure that every member has the right to participate. If there were facilities for postal voting it would eliminate the necessity for this amendment. If the Minister will write in that assurance we will withdraw the amendment immediately. Will the Minister guarantee to write in that assurance?

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is a slight disagreement here since I am convinced that the legislation does what the Deputy wishes by way of his amendment. It would be superfluous to add some of the points he has mentioned to the legislation if in fact the legislation as it stands will do what the Deputy has in mind. I have conceded points to the Deputy where I might have felt undecided or where certain points, though satisfactory, could do with further emphasis. There were points such as the notice in the newspapers, which I accepted earlier. It would be a more serious matter to accept amendment No. 7, because that would be a retreat in the direction from which we wish to escape. It would burden the job of amalgamating with requirements that are unnecessary when one considers all the safeguards written into the legislation to ensure members are given a fair chance of their views being represented when a decision is taken.

It would be a retrograde step to accept amendment No. 7. I sympathise with the Deputy in his anxiety to ensure that a genuine verdict is recorded. I have already given him the assurance that section 3 (1) (c) implies a postal ballot. I hope to be able to reassure him on that on Report Stage. I will look closely at it to see that I have been left under no misapprehension as to the intent of the provision in section 3 (1) (c), although I do not think I have been and I have discussed it with the officials concerned. Since it is accepted that postal balloting is an integral part of the voting, I would ask Deputy Dowling to withdraw amendment No. 7 in view of the safeguards written into section 3.

Mr. Dowling

In the previous legislation there was provision that 50 per cent must vote and it was necessary to have a majority of 20 per cent. There must have been some good reason to state the percentages. While the percentages may be wrong, the collective wisdom of the trade unions is necessary. As I have pointed out, there could be a very unhappy merger where a situation was brought about by a small group of people forcing the merger against the will of the majority. I do not see the provision in section 3 (1) (c) for postal voting, but if such a provision is written into the Bill I will withdraw the amendment. It must be one way or the other. We must get an assurance that the collective wisdom of the trade unions is available in the decision ultimately arrived at. I do not feel the same way as the Minister. Irrespective of what the legal advisers say, there must be a special indication with regard to postal voting and there must be provision regarding the necessary steps to apply for a postal vote, whether given to all members or to those who cannot vote because of inability to attend due to reasons of work or illness.

Mr. Moore

Although it is possible to use a postal vote in local elections it is not possible to do so in Dáil elections. The same situation may apply here. Perhaps the Minister would incorporate something on the following lines: "The method of voting shall consist of the marking of a voting paper by a person voting at the meeting or elsewhere". We must write something into the legislation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The experience of those involved in amalgamations prior to this has been that the law can do one or two things. It can either see that justice is done, that the provisions of legislation dealing with the matter protect the rights of individuals taking part in the decision and ensure that the conditions surrounding the decision give each individual a fair chance of contributing to it. The law may do that, as we do here, with right of appeal where any injustice occurs. The law can be, as it has been up to now, an impediment to progress in this area. By progress I mean a process whereby unions come together.

If we begin to clutter up this legislation with specific measures that are unnecessary when we consider the larger criteria that must be fulfilled, we begin to defeat the purpose of this legislation, whether we desire to do so or not. Certainly we do not assist the movement towards amalgamation among unions. I am quite sure that the provision of section 3 (1) (c) permits of postal voting.

That, taken in conjunction with the other safety measures to which I have referred at length already, leaves little human possibility of the kind of situation mentioned by Deputy Dowling. I know that the Deputy is as anxious as the rest of us to facilitate movement in this area, movement in which there is the right of appeal where a person is of the opinion that justice is not complied with. I would hope that the Deputy would withdraw the amendment because it would not assist us but would tend to nudge this piece of legislation back to what we have tried to rescue this whole area from. I could not accept the amendment.

Mr. Dowling

The two most important provisions of this Bill are the ballot and the financial assistance that is to be given to unions. The Minister is aware that in relation to a previous merger the problem was the question of the ballot. The manner in which it was conducted and the decision arrived at were contested. The most important matter from the point of view of union members is the merger and the next most important aspect is the assistance given towards amalgamation. This must be protected to the greatest degree possible.

I do not see the situation as the Minister sees it in relation to section 3, subsection (1) (c). The Minister must realise that there is reason in what we are saying in relation to the postal vote. This provision should be more specific and should be embodied in the Bill. In that case we would be happy that the collective wisdom of the union members would be brought to bear in relation to decision making. Should members decide not to vote, that would be their affair; but they would have a fair and reasonable opportunity of doing so should they wish.

In the absence of such provisions in the Bill a situation could be imagined whereby a smaller union, a minority of people—for example, people on circuit such as those engaged in the installation of central heating systems, people such as lighthouse keepers or commercial travellers —would not have that opportunity. In the case of a union in which only a small number of people was involved, one vote could be weighted so as to equal two or three votes, by the decision of members in relation to the time at which a ballot would take place.

The Minister must accept it as being fair and reasonable that provision for a postal vote would be embodied in this Bill, not in the manner in which it is proposed, whereby somebody with a legal mind could, perhaps, read into it the provision for a postal vote. Perhaps I am as reasonable a person as is the Minister or anybody else but I cannot read that into the Bill. In the first place, there would have to be provision to allow for application for a postal vote, but there is no such provision. I appreciate that the Minister is endeavouring to protect the ballot in every way possible. By his amendments and by his attitude here he has done so in a fairly comprehensive way except for the one weakness that I have referred to. Would the Minister be prepared to give an assurance to the House that on Report Stage he will embody a provision in relation to a postal vote? Already he has agreed on the question of a secret ballot. There is no specific assurance in the Bill that everyone will be entitled to vote. If this provision were specified in the Bill, there would be no need for amendment No. 7.

Mr. Esmonde

I wish, first, to underline a fact here: this Bill is dealing with the property rights of a member of a union. It is very necessary to bear this in mind. I am speaking from the legal point of view of the rights of a member such as the one to which Deputy Dowling was referring. Section 3 provides that the method of voting shall consist of the marking of a ballot paper by the person voting. There is a duty placed on the registrar to ensure that that is complied with. The fundamental principle here is that, if a person is a member of union A and is merging with union B, he loses his right as a member of union A and will be merged with union B. Before that can take place in respect of that member it must be shown that, first, he had the right to vote and, secondly, the opportunity to avail of that vote. That is a fundamental principle of law.

Therefore if the Act were to be interpreted as Deputy Dowling says, that is, that the right of postal voting is not there and if, say, a member is living in Killorglin or in the Bahamas for that matter, he is precluded from a vote that takes place in Dublin. In other words he will not be given the rights that are set out in that section and so the ballot is wrong. That is what the Minister is saying and, further, he is saying to Deputy Dowling that he will go back to his legal adviser again to make sure that the advice he has been given so far is correct.

There might be an alternative way of dealing with this situation—for instance, under subsection (2) to provide for the making of regulations under the Act. That might be a better way of dealing with any fears there might be. These would be regulations to clarify any matters about which there might be doubt because there is always a danger in putting too much into an Act. As I see it, the Bill gives the right to the postal vote because there is the duty that each member must not only have the ballot paper but must have the right to mark that paper and have it registered as a vote.

I can understand Deputy Dowling's concern but I am looking at the matter as a lawyer. I am having regard to the normal principles that apply when one is dealing with personal and property rights. These are rights that are scrutinised carefully by any court of law in this country. The courts are very jealous of anything that could detract from these rights. The registrar knows well that that is the principle that will govern any judge in reaching a decision.

That brings me to section 5 and to Deputy Dowling's amendment. I can understand what is causing the Deputy concern. In his opinion, this will not be a genuine 50 per cent of people who are given the offer to vote. Secondly, he is concerned in case they would not have the right to register their votes. My view is that section 3, subsection (1) (c) gives that right and that section 3, subsection (1) (d) makes certain that the notice in received. Section 9, which deals with the registrar's function in the matter, also enforces the principle that justice be done in relation to a merger or to a transfer of engagements.

If we were to have a different percentage from the simple majority one would have to engage in very complicated drafting and would have to decide on what principle the voting majority would be decided. As Deputy Moore rightly said, he does not know how the Minister would go about it. It is a complicated situation. The Deputy might bear in mind that where no majority is stated it is deemed to be the simple majority. This is normal procedure. If we were to go for a higher or more complicated majority in this case we would be doing what every Deputy wants to avoid—putting a hindrance on mergers where the unions or the majority of the workers want to merge.

If we have a complicated procedure of assessing the voting I could see considerable difficulty arising if the merged union wanted to deal with its properties or funds later on. That matter is being simplified under this Bill, but I am personally aware of difficulties having arisen in the past in dealing with trade union property. Therefore I should hate to see anything other than the section as drafted, section 5. If you had a complicated system in section 5 it would mean that in any future dealings with the union's property, even the lodging of the title deeds of the union's offices or property for the purpose of obtaining funds, as is sometimes done when there is a difficult labour dispute or strike and money is needed, difficulty would arise. They would be precluded from getting money easily in those circumstances by virtue of the fact that any bank accepting that property as security would have to go right back into the business of the ballot that justified the transfer of the assets in the first instance. If it is a simple majority you will not have that difficulty. I have had this difficulty with clubs, associations and unions when it comes to dealing with the property of such organisations.

I suggest to Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore that the matter be left to the Report Stage. Then, if it needs clarification, if there is any scintilla of doubt, I am certain the Minister will have a statutory formula setting it out in black and white. I think it is black and white in the Bill as it stands now.

Mr. M. O'Leary

One of the essential functions of this legislation is that it rids us of what Deputy Esmonde refers to as hindrances in previous legislation and one of the major—if not the major one—hindrances in terms of mergers in the past was the requirement of 50 per cent with a 20 per cent majority. The law itself is an impediment to unions coming together and there is no formula that would get over this. That is why we are going for the simple majority. It clears the path of legal obstacles that existed up to now. It would not, I am sure, be the purpose of Deputies opposite to reintroduce legal obstacles to future union mergers and that would be the effect of Deputy Dowling's amendment. I know he would not intend it, but that would certainly be its consequence. We would have struck at the heart of this legislation because right at its centre we would be leaving an unresolved problem, leaving no possibility to those wishing to amalgamate of coming together, because acceptance of amendment No. 7 would put a full stop to any developments in this area.

I could not therefore under any circumstances accept amendment No. 7. It would defeat the whole purpose of the legislation whose major beneficial consequences is the scrapping of previous legal obstacles with their requirements to have this or that majority when it came to making a decision, so long as we ensure—as I think we do in this legislation—that the principle of fairness is observed throughout and that there is a right of appeal by the aggrieved person, who does not feel the requirements of the legislation were carried out.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Esmonde made his case so well that he has made me even more uneasy, which may sound contradictory, but the points he has made convince me that another lawyer in another place might be just as effective in arguing that if a person got a postal vote, in fact he had no right to get it under this Bill and the whole thing could be held to be invalid.

Mr. Esmonde

That is not so. He has a perfect right to express an opinion and he must have access to the ballot box. Otherwise, we would contravene the principle of natural justice.

Mr. Moore

It says in the Bill at section 3 (1) (c) that the method of voting shall consist of the marking of a voting paper by the person voting.

Mr. Esmonde

That is not a vote.

Mr. Moore

Under that section it is a vote.

Mr. Esmonde

No, not until it is lodged.

Mr. Moore

Where does it state that?

Mr. Esmonde

That is implied. You do not write in all these provisions.

Mr. Moore

The Minister probably has very good reason for not using the word "postal" but yet I feel that Deputy Dowling has a very strong point here. If the Minister would say "voting at a meeting or by post..." it would seem reasonable. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Local Government introduced a postal vote a few months ago for local elections and, in fact, promised that it would probably be extended to parliamentary elections soon. The principle of postal voting is being more commonly accepted and we probably will have it for Dáil elections in the near future. I cannot therefore understand why the Minister is resisting the suggestion to spell it out further by adding the word "postal" to section 3 (I) (c). Perhaps the Minister and Deputy Esmonde know some good reason why it should not be done.

Mr. Esmonde

It is done every day. You read of it in the papers where they are waiting for the vote to come in.

Mr. Moore

Yes, but in the appropriate legislation there is provision for that. My point is that there is no such provision here. If the registrar decides that Mr. X may have a postal vote, somebody on the other side may say Mr. X had no right to a postal vote, that it is not in this Bill.

Mr. Esmonde

That is not the law.

Mr. Moore

If the registrar should overstretch to facilitate a seaman, a commercial traveller or a lighthouse keeper, could I not say he had no right to do so? Where was his authority?

Mr. Esmonde

He is given that right by inference.

Mr. Moore

But it is not there in black and white. It may therefore become a lawyer's battleground. We could avoid this by including the word "postal". That is my opinion and I am not a lawyer. Deputy Esmonde made his case so well that I was rather afraid he might reverse his arguments elsewhere and have this procedure declared invalid. Perhaps that is not a very good type of compliment but that is how I regarded it.

Mr. Esmonde

You take the principle of the Bill when you are interpretating any section, and it is very clear for the purposes of this Bill, and what the principle is to each individual who is involved in any merger and that is the over-riding light in which the court would approach this Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Bill states that there must be a fair opportunity to take part in the vote and there is also written into the Bill a written ballot. Surely both of those together must add up to the fact that a man who cannot, because of various circumstances, actually vote has his right of appeal written into the Bill. I will repeat that the fundamental problem faced by this legislation was the problem of too many specific requirements in previous legislation preventing any developments in this area. To clear away those unnecessary legal provisions, unnecessary when you consider the in-built guarantees of justice and fairness to all concerned written into this legislation, is one of the principal functions of this legislation. Deputies opposite will miss the whole point of it if they do not see that that is probably its most important feature.

Mr. Dowling

I would like to assure the Minister that we are just as anxious as he is to remove impediments such as there were in previous legislation. We are as anxious as the Minister is to see that there is fair play in relation to voting procedures and to the type of majority. I would go along with the Minister that section 5 as it stands is sufficient provided the other problem is met.

Deputy Esmonde, who is speaking as a lawyer, said that you cannot put too much in legislation. It is just as inadvisable to put in too little. I was a member of a union that merged so I know the many problems involved. I know that funds of that union ended up in lawyers' pockets. They were the people who were interpreting the legislation and other matters. A substantial amount of workers' money, accumulated over years, that could have been devoted to the betterment of members' facilities, ended up in the pockets of lawyers. We want something more clear-cut than we have here to ensure that the same thing does not happen again. It may be all right for Deputy Esmonde, a lawyer, to be able to read something into this but it should not be necessary for a member of a union or for the members of the executive of a union to pay a lawyer to interpret a particular line to know whether it means voting by post or not.

Deputy Moore has made a good point in relation to local elections. Prior to the Bill introduced by the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, to mark a paper was sufficient but it did not mean voting by post, it meant voting in a polling booth. The Minister for Local Government had to make special provision in the House to enable people to obtain a postal vote. That particular Minister thought it was necessary in order to ensure that people would be able to vote by post, to bring in legislation for the purpose.

The Minister must agree that in a merger there are vested interests. Jobs are lost by some of the officials and they could influence a ballot in the manner I indicated previously. The Minister must also agree that the most undesirable result would be for the registrar to nullify a ballot. The morale of the members of the union would certainly be affected by this. It would be much better if the position were clear-cut and it would take very little to satisfy us. It is most unreasonable of the Minister not to ensure at this stage that we have written into the Bill the procedure for a postal vote and the fact that votes can be cast by post. I see the Minister's problem in relation to the amendment being put forward but it was a protective amendment. The Minister must realise our anxiety to ensure that all members votes are weighted equally and that one vote will not carry the same weight as two votes. This can well happen where manipulation takes place.

The Minister has endeavoured to ensure that there will be secrecy of the ballot and that every member will have an equal opportunity to vote. There is still this one defect. I would ask the Minister to disregard the advice of the lawyers on this occasion and write this into the Bill to satisfy the ordinary trade unionist so that he will be able to read common sense into the Bill and proceed accordingly without consulting the lawyers. As I said, the funds of the union to which I belong and which merged, ended up in the pockets of the lawyers who were brought in to interpret the previous legislation.

Mr. Esmonde

Because there was none there before.

Mr. Dowling

I do not want to see this happen again. I do not want to see my money or other members' money going down the drain. This is the only defect here. All we are asking is that it be specified in the Bill that every member has the right to ask for and obtain a postal vote. I would then withdraw the amendment. But if the Minister will not write that in we will have to insist on some type of majority being indicated to ensure that the votes will be weighted evenly and that there will be some reason in a ballot decision.

Mr. M. O'Leary

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.

Mr. Dowling

I agree with most of what the Minister has said. As a matter of fact I had already said much of what he has stated. He made one point in relation to the formation of Government by majority vote. There is provision in legislation for postal votes. It is clearly written into legislation in relation to parliamentary elections——

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is here also. I have told the Deputy that.

Mr. Dowling

——and in relation to local elections. It is more specific than it is here. It specifies the manner in which postal votes can be obtained. There is a special register for postal votes for the Garda, for the Army and for other people. There is a difference between this legislation and the legislation dealing with a parliamentary election.

The Minister should be a little more reasonable on the point we have made asking him to be specific about the postal vote. As a layman I would ask him to write into the Bill a section that can be clearly understood by trade unionists who have not got a lawyer at their disposal all the time to interpret the Bill and who would like to read the Bill and see that they have this concession. The Minister feels it is written into the Bill and I feel it is not. If it is, it should be more specific and it should be clear to union members. Section 3 (1) (a) provides that every member of the union shall be entitled to vote on the resolution. He is entitled to vote, but that is as far as it goes.

Mr. Esmonde

That is the first heading I mentioned. Go on to the next one.

Mr. Dowling

Section 3 (1) (b) provides that 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. That is fair enough. I agree with that. The next one is the important one. Section 3 (1) (c) provides that the method of voting shall consist of the marking of a voting paper by the person voting.

Mr. Esmonde

That precludes the showing of hands type of voting.

Mr. Dowling

The Minister indicated earlier that he would amend this to deal with the secret ballot. I think he said he will have that written into section 3.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is true.

Mr. Dowling

To me a secret ballot——

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think this is adequately covered in paragraph (c). I have no doubt about it.

Mr. Dowling

The interpretation of a secret ballot is a group of people going to a union meeting and instead of putting up their hands voting on a paper. That does not give the person the right to vote by post and that is the important issue.

Mr. Esmonde

It does because paragraph (b) is there. How can you construe it otherwise? If a person is down in Killorglin when the voting is taking place in Dublin he must be given a postal vote. Otherwise paragraph (b) is not complied with.

Mr. Dowling

If a person has the right to vote by post there must be provision for his obtaining a ballot paper by post. That provision is not here. It is not indicated to me that there is provision for a person to vote by post. We have consistently made the point that we want the collective wisdom of the union to be effective in any decision arrived at. If it is, then a simple majority will suffice.

The Minister said he will provide in the section for the question of a secret ballot. If the secret ballot is embodied in the subsection it refers only to a meeting where a show of hands would take place as against a secret ballot. That indicates to me that if a person on Fastnet Rock or down in Galway put up his hand, his vote could be recorded if this section were not in the Bill. That is not enough. His vote must be recorded in writing and he should have that opportunity which, to my mind, is not given to him in the Bill.

Mr. Esmonde

It says: "...so far as is reasonably possible, shall be given a fair opportunity of voting." How can it be a fair opportunity of voting unless he has the postal ballot?

Mr. Dowling

It is not unreasonable to ask that the matter should be clarified to a degree to which I could understand it. I may be very dull but I regard myself as a normal individual. I am not a lawyer. I could well understand that a lawyer would read that into the section.

Mr. Esmonde

If you wanted to go into particularities like that you would possibly have to preclude a pencil as against a biro or a piece of chalk and you might endanger the overall legislation. That is one of the dangers. They did this in America with legislation and got themselves into trouble. Let us not make the same mistake.

Mr. Dowling

In order to ensure that people could vote by post the Minister for Local Government had to bring in special legislation. People had the same right to vote under the legislation before that, and every attempt was made to ensure that they could vote without interference or constraint.

Mr. Esmonde

In a parliamentary election you have to vote in a certain place and in a certain ballot box. That is different from what is here.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think Members will agree that we have deliberated on this amendment for some considerable time. May I now ask how stands the amendment?

Mr. Dowling

The Minister should give an assurance that he will use some phraseology that will be understandable to the normal person rather than to lawyers only. I was a member of a union that merged and the funds of that union were eaten up by lawyers. I do not want that to happen again. I have every respect for the viewpoint of a lawyer and it is necessary that we should get the legal viewpoint when compiling legislation. It would not take very much for the Minister to say yes.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I say sincerely that the Deputy may be better than my advisers and me at putting it into the kind of language he desires. We have made the language as understandable as possible to allow for as many contingencies as possible. If the Deputy sets down his attempt at simple language in this section for Report Stage I will have a look at it. I cannot accept this amendment which would seriously impair the effectiveness of what I have in mind. When it came to the actual decision by the union going into a merger or an amalgamation I wanted to get away from the requirement of this kind of majority or that kind of majority and, instead, to accept fully the validity of the majority decision with the inbuilt guarantee that it was a decision based on the knowledge and consent of the members involved. If the Deputy elaborates on section 3 for Report Stage I will look at it favourably. I have already accepted any points which I felt legitimately could be added without impairing the spirit or the content of the legislation.

Mr. Dowling

Will the Minister reword paragraph (c) in relation to the secret ballot?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have undertaken to do that.

Mr. Dowling

I know that, but we would want to see the phraseology.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I undertake to do that for Report Stage and I will also consider——

Mr. Dowling

Could we have it at an early stage so that we can consider it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We will send the Deputy a copy fully seven days before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.