Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Jun 1926

Vol. 7 No. 7

RAILWAYS (EXISTING OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.

Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Every officer and every servant of the amalgamated company who if he had not become such officer or servant would have been entitled to a gratuity under the first paragraph of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act shall, if his services are dispensed with by the amalgamated company within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act and whether before or after the passing of this Act on account of his services having become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies effected by or under the Principal Act and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, introduction of improved methods of working (other than methods which would not have been feasible for the amalgamating or absorbed company by which the officer or servant was formerly employed), or other economic cause, be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated company a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the amount of his annual salary and emoluments for every completed year of his service.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 28-29 the words "within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act."

The object of this is to get back to the position which railwaymen were in after the passing of the 1924 Act. There was no limit in that Act to the time within which a railway employee might be dispensed with and still be in a position to claim compensation. That was secured to him by the Act, which we know was practically an agreed measure between the employee and the railway company. We seek by this Bill to take from the employee rights which he had secured after due deliberation by an Act passed by this House. I think that is extremely unjust. It is a thing that, as far as we know, is not done in any Parliament in any country where an amalgamation of services has taken place or where there has been reorganisation of an industry.

We should not set up in this House a standard of that description by which we can filch away to-day what we ratified a few days ago, not for the reason that any change has taken place in the economic condition of the country, but for some reason which seems so far to be only known to the Minister himself. I have watched the Bill in the Lower House, but I can point to nothing that can convince me that this destruction of the workmen's rights was justified. No claim can be made by a servant after 1931. If his services become redundant, say, within the next four or five years, he has a claim for six and a-half years.

It is difficult enough for a man to establish a claim at the present moment, or even within the next year, but when it is six or seven years it will be almost impossible for that man to establish a claim, and the anomaly is that he may establish it after six years and eleven months, but by the company holding him one month longer in their service they can dispense with that man. If he were able to prove it after a lapse of seven years there is no reason why he should not be granted the terms as laid down for him in the Bill last year. Like yesterday's Bill, to some extent, this is one of retrospective legislation, and it is, I think, pitiable, and not to the credit of both Houses, that it is necessary at such an early stage to bring in this. It is quite possible that the company may balance up its account at the end of four or five years, and say it is cheaper to keep these men, whose services are redundant by reason of amalgamation, walking about the platform with their hands in their pockets for seven years, and get rid of them without any compensation, than to allow them to establish their claim now. A man may be in a position to establish his claim now, but is not released by the company to do so. He is kept on in their employment because it is cheaper for them. In the British Act of 1921 this was not done. There was no limit placed to the time at which he could prove redundancy, and claim what he was entitled to claim. I think the railway companies should be very slow to do that, because I believe in any system of reorganisation they will not pay men to walk about, but the temptation to railway companies is great to do so. I do not think I have anything further to add. Apart from the general iniquity and unfairness of the Bill, this is one of the glaring grievances.

I hope the Minister will be able to see his way to accept this amendment. I fail to see why he should consider it necessary to introduce such an amending Bill at all. I hardly think it was in the companies' original Bill as handed to him. It is certainly not in the Act because of anything that has happened in connection with the administration of the Third Schedule, seeing obviously that nobody could come with a claim for compensation seven years after the passing of the Act which was passed two years ago. There is more in that part of the Third Schedule we are repealing than the mere payment of compensation for redundancy. Sub-section (3) of the Third Schedule provides:

"No existing officer or servant so transferred shall, without his consent, be by reason of such transfer in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund, or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice of the amalgamating or absorbed company) as compared with the conditions of service formerly obtaining with respect to him."

Sub-section (4) lays down certain conditions.

It reads:—

"If any existing officer or servant so transferred is without his consent in any such worse position as aforesaid, by reason of such transfer, and has thereby suffered any loss or injury, he shall be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated companies such lump sum as would reasonably compensate him for such loss or injury."

We are repealing in this Bill that sub-section (4), and that means that after five years from now the company who took over a number of officers and servants are at perfect liberty to reduce their salaries and to reduce their status, and in every respect that they may desire, apart from the question of dismissing them, they have the right to reduce and to disimprove the conditions of service, which these men enjoyed under the old Act. Apart from the question of redundancy, you are taking away all protection in that respect from every railway employee who has been transferred. As Senator Cummins has pointed out, if it is just and if it is logical to afford protection at all, that protection should not be for a temporary period.

You might as well say that seven years after the signing of the Treaty all transferred civil servants should lose the rights which they held and the conditions which they enjoyed prior to the Treaty. Nobody can suggest here in this House with any sense of reason that five or seven years after 1921 these civil servants should be stripped of all protection. Yet that is the position in regard to this Bill. If a man is redundant at any time, the Minister says that redundancy will have shown itself by that time. It may: it is quite possible that the redundancy will have shown itself within that time. It is a question of chance, but if it does arise after the seven year period named in the Bill that a man is disimproved in his position or that he becomes redundant, it will be obviously much more difficult to prove it than it would be within seven years. That is his funeral, but if he can prove his case, where is the logic of depriving him of the right of proving that case and of getting compensation? It is a fact that he may be dismissed after six years and eleven months, or even on the exact completion of the seven years, and he can establish his claim for compensation, but if a period of seven years and a day has elapsed, he is outside the jurisdiction.

You are taking away more than the mere right of compensation in these cases. You are stripping the man of the fundamental rights he has of being no worse under amalgamation than he was prior to it. I do not see the necessity for it. It has not been found necessary to introduce anything like that into the British Act or into the Rates and Valuation Act of 1925 in the British Parliament. There has been no reason found for introducing this provision into the Local Government Act or any of the Acts passed by the Oireachtas, and I do not see the logic or the reason for introducing it here. It cannot be said that the necessity has arisen for it, that there are instances to show that it is necessary, but a mere presumption that something may happen which the Minister has not indicated renders it necessary now. I suggest to the Minister that it is unreasonable to introduce it into this Bill. It is introduced as a new principle for which there is no justification. The amendment should be accepted and we would be thereby restoring the status quo as far as this particular portion of the Bill is concerned.

I think the Minister should accept this amendment.

Until the period is reached when a man may be dismissed without any compensation, a number of years would elapse, and in large organisations like this, so many men will die or retire because of old age during that time, as time goes on the men need not be redundant. They can be transferred from one station to another, but if a man is found seven years after the passing of the Principal Act to be redundant, he should not be deprived of any privilege the Minister is giving under this Bill.

I agree with what Senator Dowdall and other Senators have said. I think the Minister should accept this amendment. It is very unreasonable to penalise these men in the manner that he proposes.

I think there are some other points which the House might take into consideration in considering this limitation. There has been a reasonable period allowed within which men may enjoy certain rights conferred by the Principal Act. Comparisons have been made with the English Railways Act and other legislation, but in the first instance it should be remembered that the English Railways Act was an agreed measure. The Irish Railways Act was not sought by the railways amalgamated under it. They are a private concern and have to make their own way. They are not finding it very easy to do so. I think seven years is an ample period and I think that a limitation of this kind is only reasonable.

I was going to say it was a pity that the Labour Party when they were sharing around their amendments had not taken care to see that two amendments so alike in essentials as No. 1 and No. 5, should not have been given to the same Senator, but then Senator O'Farrell, who has some experience of railway affairs, makes exactly the same inaccurate statement that Senator Cummins so unfortunately made. Senator Cummins said that this Bill takes away rights given to certain individuals by the 1924 Act. Does Senator Cummins really believe that any men referred to in Section 2 of this Bill had any rights given to them by the 1924 Act? I think the Senator does not realise what the effect of the section is that he refers to. He made a comparison with the British legislation, but the people referred to in Section 2 of the Bill are not brought into the British legislation.

I might say that this amendment referred, of course, also to Section 4, and it was thought desirable for convenience sake, as the same arguments would be adduced as regards Section 4, to refer to the matter here, because the short-service men, if kept on, eventually become long-service men and their rights have to be protected. If the Minister would confine himself to the principle, rather than debating points, it would be better.

Debating points when I answer, but not debating points when the Senators make the plea. It is a pity the Senators had not been asked to make themselves familiar with the difference between amendments 1 and 5, but then Senator O'Farrell did not even point it out to the House. Let us keep to the principle that he raised. Senator Dowdall made an argument with which Senator Colonel Moore agreed and with which I am in complete agreement in so far as I understood it—that redundancy is not likely to arise after seven years. I hold that any effects of the Railways Act of 1924 are going to be fully felt within about three years' time, and we say seven years—three within which the effects may be felt, and four during which there might be an exceptional case that would hang on for a longer period. I agree with Senator Moore and Senator Dowdall that there is not likely to be any question of redundancy after seven years, but we want finality in this. If we do not put in a period where is the finality? Finality is reached when every railway employee in the service of the company when the Railways Act came into operation has left the service or has died. That is the only way to get finality if you do not put in some definite period. I ask the House do they consider that the effects of amalgamation are going to show themselves by bringing about redundancy in two or three years, and if so, then I ask them to say that a seven-year period within which claims may be brought for compensation for loss of office by redundancy is quite a sufficient period.

I would like to remind the House that the Minister has taken no notice of this fact: that this amendment applies to more than redundancy, that it takes away the protection which an employee has of not being reduced or degraded.

Not on this section.

You can explain that on Section 4.

I will argue it on Section 4.

Short service becomes long service in the case of certain men after a few years more, and these men have more extended rights as time goes on.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Is it a fact that that argument does not apply to this particular amendment?

It does in this respect, that where a man has less than five years' service now a company cannot, without his own consent, reduce him to an inferior position or lower his salary without paying compensation. Under this Bill you are taking away that protection.

Where is the protection given?

He becomes an existing officer.

I think he is brought within that category.

In regard to a short service man, the point remains that the question is left to the company to get all the work they can out of him for the next five years and, at the end of that period, dispense with him without any compensation. If it is a just principle to extend protection only for a limited period in respect of railwaymen surely it will be good in respect of every other man. I hope the Minister will come down to the merits of the case. We do not presume to compete with him on debating points. We only want reasonable justice for 17,000 men.

Amendment put, a show of hands being taken.

CATHAOIRLEACH

There are 15 for and 15 against the amendment. I think I am bound to give a casting vote.

I ask for a division.

Then I think the Cathaoirleach is not asked to exercise his casting vote.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not want to give a casting vote if the Senator wants a division.

Had I voted there would be no need for the casting vote. I did not like to vote because I did not know what the question was about.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Perhaps you are not singular in that.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 17.

Tá.

  • William Cummins.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Benjamin Haughton.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Francis MacGuinness.
  • James MacKean.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • John O'Farrell.
  • Michael F. O'Hanlon.
  • William O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.

Níl.

  • Thomas Westropp Bennett.
  • John Bagwell.
  • William Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown.
  • Martin Fitzgerald.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Henry Seymour Guinness.
  • Arthur Jackson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • Countess of Desart.
  • James Douglas.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • James Moran.
  • Stephen O'Mara.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
Amendment declared lost.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "Act" in line 30 down to and including the word "cause" in line 39 and to substitute therefor the words "for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity."

I hope Senators will pay all the attention they can to this amendment. The last amendment was lost by one vote, that of a Senator who only came in and knew nothing about the matter. I wish to impress on the Seanad the vital importance of this amendment if the subsequent section and sub-sections of the Bill are to come into operation at all. The amendment would make Section 2, sub-section (1), read:

"Every officer and every servant of the amalgamated company who if he had not become such officer or servant would have been entitled to a gratuity under the first paragraph of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act shall, if his services are dispensed with by the amalgamated company within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act and whether before or after the passing of this Act for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated company..."

In other words, it would bring us back to the position which obtained under the Principal Act and which operates under the British Act.

With regard to these people?

It is very difficult to make a case in respect of Section 2 without at the same time introducing Section 4. The principle is the same in each case. What shall a man have to prove or what shall he have to disprove in order to get compensation? It is infinitely more important in the case of Section 4, which deals with a long-service man, up to 50 years' service, than in the case of a short-service man. What I want to put to the House is that there is not a bit of use in laying down a basis of compensation if there is put between the man and the compensation absolutely insuperable obstacles. I say in all sincerity that the Bill as it stands makes it impossible for one-twentieth of the men who may become redundant now or hereafter, or of the hundreds who have already become redundant, to prove a case. The Minister may bring in some other words. It is his business to do that if he seeks to alter the Act in a drastic form.

As it stands the Bill makes it impossible for anyone to bring a case for compensation except, at the outside, one in twenty. Ever since the Railway Commission in 1922 the companies were well aware that either nationalisation or amalgamation was morally certain. They were shaping policy in accordance with that understanding. A number of positions that became vacant were not filled and as a result staffs were being gradually reduced. When amalgamation took place the railways were working with minimum staffs. A number of men were doing superior duties because the posts they were filling were not officially filled and they were carrying on as deputies. The new company started with a skeleton staff. Every man on the railway before amalgamation took place had a practical certainty of permanent employment, if amalgamation had not taken place. The Act merely provides that all these employees and servants of the old companies became automatically servants and officers of the new company. In accordance with such agreements, brought about for the public benefit—and in connection with a Bill which was not asked for by the railway employees—the fundamental principle was observed of either finding employment for them or compensating them on a certain basis.

The basis was not an exceedingly generous one. As I pointed out, a man with 30 years' service to his credit who had 50/- a week prior to amalgamation and who became redundant would get a pension of only 25/- a week. The less service the less compensation. If they dispensed with half the staff they would at all events by that means be making very extensive savings in regard to working expenses. What has happened? Nearly always when there is temporary depression in trade or in traffic companies do not proceed to dismiss the staff immediately. They hold them on for a certain period and gradually absorb them as vacancies occur. They stopped recruiting and made use of the natural wastage, either where men were retiring from old age, death, resignation, emigration, or dismissal for incapacity or misconduct. They gradually absorbed the redundant staff in that way. The amalgamated company could effect extensive economies by these methods. They could hold people who were redundant until sufficient vacancies arose to absorb them and thereby avoid paying compensation or putting them out.

What they are trying to do, unfortunately, according to the Minister's statement, is to dispense with them, by dismissing them forthwith, without paying any compensation and saying that it is not because of amalgamation. I think it is ridiculous to say they are not redundant because of amalgamation but because of reduction in traffic, improved methods of working, or any other economic cause. The man in the first place has to prove that his services are being dispensed with by the amalgamated company on account of having become unnecessary in consequence of changes in administration due directly to amalgamation and absorption of the company, as effected by the Principal Act. He has to prove all that against what the company undoubtedly seek to prove— that his redundance is due to decreased traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work, to improved methods of working which would not have been feasible by the smaller or absorbed companies by which the officer or servant was formerly employed, or for any other economic cause.

The railwayman, no matter what his position, who would attempt to try to prove a case of that kind and disprove the other case brought up by the company's experts against him, would be only fit for a lunatic asylum. Let us take a case, say a goods depot like the North Wall. Suppose it is found that there is an annual reduction of 10,000 tons of traffic outwards and inwards to the North Wall Depot; there is a huge traffic outwards to cross-Channel stations and inland, and there is a huge inwards traffic for Dublin from the country and cross-Channel stations. Now suppose there is found to be a reduction of 10,000 tons of traffic in a year; that can be shown not only to affect the employees at the North Wall but, also, to affect the general chain of staffs which handle, either physically or in correspondence, the transportation of that traffic. First, the goods are handled at the North Wall, and they are also handled at the receiving stations. If you reduce traffic at North Wall you reduce the work of the men there, and you reduce the work, to some extent, of the men at the various stations throughout the whole system dealing with traffic from North Wall. You reduce the correspondence at North Wall affected by that traffic, the invoicing and the rest of it, inward and outward, and you affect the work of the various departments in the chief office—the goods department, the statistics department, the traffic department, and the accounts, and the cash department and other departments at the North Wall will be affected by this 10,000 tons of traffic in a greater or lesser degree. You reduce the work of every man who deals with the administration of traffic right through the whole chain.

To put that in concrete form it may represent the work of ten men for a year, but you cannot show in that way that ten men are redundant at any one station as a result. You can show that there is a fraction taken off the work of a great many men. You have five or six thousand men affected, and you cannot select ten men and say these men are redundant. What you can do is if you have 200 or 300 men redundant and if you can prove that this decrease of traffic takes something off a man's duties you establish the case that redundancy is brought about by a decrease in traffic, and the claim of the men for compensation fails. And if that fails you can say there is a reduction in renewal and maintenance in connection with locomotives and permanent way, owing to improved methods of working, and you can bring forward officials from the statistics and accounts departments, and so on, in support of that statement. If, after that, you feel you still have a weak case you can say that the redundancy is due to improved methods of working brought about by the genius of the new management. If after that you still feel shaky you can plead some other economic cause. You can prove that there is a depression in trade, and consequently that there is not the same amount to be handled, and there is no need to have the same amount of people employed now as when trade was booming.

What chance has one individual, whether he be a porter or a permanent way man or a senior clerk, to disprove all these various things that can be advanced in a scientific way by facts, figures and argument put up by the company's experts if the company seek to make a case against him? He has none. You may as well say the work in this House is looked upon as not affording sufficient employment for 60 Senators, and consequently it is decided that 10 were redundant. But who are to be selected as redundant? It may be supposed, perhaps, that you could easily select them in the present circumstances from among the absentees. But suppose all Senators attended here, and it was still contended that there was not enough work for 60, and the numbers must be reduced by ten, then whom would you select? You might say some Senators talk a lot and generally do not do a lot of work; others come here and obey the party Whips and vote for the Government and they may be held to be doing more useful work than those who hold up the House talking. You may be able to prove that the reduction of work affects every Senator, but how can you make a case against any one of these if they claim compensation for redundancy? It is as difficult for a railwayman to prove that he is not one of the people affected by the various clauses set out in the Third Schedule.

It is for us merely waste of time to talk of discussing the subsequent sections of the Bill if 2 and 4 are allowed to remain, postponing aspirations which nineteen-twentieths of the people can never hope to attain.

A great deal of heat was brought into the discussion of this Bill in the other House. The Minister in charge of the Bill made the extraordinary statement here the last day that my opposition to the Bill was actuated by the fact that I wrote him a certain letter which he characterised as absurd, and that, arising out of a feeling of pique, as a result, I opposed the Bill. He must know very well that from the day the Bill first saw the light I publicly denounced it, and that, long before that letter was written, and before any of the debates in the Dáil took place, he must know that somebody, with some sense of justice, would have to make an appeal for elementary justice for the vested interests of 17,000 railway employees.

It has not been found necessary to introduce these provisions into the British Act at all, and for that reason, notwithstanding what Senator Bagwell says, there is not one iota of difference governing the position in this Bill and in the British Act. How can there be? The principle is the same: neither party asked for the Bill; it was forced upon them. I appeal for serious consideration for my amendment, and I appeal to the Minister to come down from the hard, antagonistic attitude he has taken up. If he has any grudge to satisfy in this matter, let him deal with us. It is not right that people outside —honest working men, some in very responsible positions, some in very humble positions, but nevertheless all entitled to Justice at the hands of the Oireachtas—should suffer because the Minister may have a score to settle with somebody else in this House. The Minister knows that amendments No. 2 and 5 are absolutely essential, or something comparable to them, before any man can possibly get compensation. His advisers admitted, privately, that if the company want to take advantage of this, no compensation need be paid. And they have said: "Surely Mr. Keogh is not going to take advantage of such a position." That is a deplorable position, but it is a fact. I do not suggest mala fides on the part of the railway companies, but I suggest that men should not be placed at the mercy of one side in this business, but that they should be protected by the law and not have to appeal for mercy. If that is a good principle in one case it is good in another. I have tried, as far as possible, because of the technical nature of the case, to put the position before the Committee, and if they take the view I tried to impress upon them I feel they will accept this amendment, or one that will enable those concerned to have a reasonable chance of establishing their claims to compensation when they lose their employment.

The Committee should be reminded, before they decide upon this amendment, what the position would mean to the railway companies if it were accepted. It would mean that the railway companies would have to compensate every man discharged other than for misconduct or incapacity. No matter how trade fails, no matter how little work there was to do, they would not be able to discharge anybody in such circumstances, except by paying compensation. That is a position no business should be put into. The mover of this amendment has said that the amalgamation of the companies was done in the public interest. All I can say is that it is not in the public interest to have an impoverished railway company deprived by the passing of this amendment of the right of reducing their expenditure as all other companies are in a position to do. By passing this amendment the Seanad would be placing the railway company in an embarrassed financial position.

Might I ask how many men were disemployed as a result of amalgamation?

Something in the vicinity of two thousand.

That is a matter I wanted to know, for it looked as if Senator O'Farrell requires the railway company to go on with the same service of men irrespective of their necessities. But inasmuch as the railway company have, since the time of the amalgamation, reduced their staff considerably, I now think there is a good deal to be said for Senator O'Farrell's amendment. We all know what it is that leads to the slum population of Dublin. It is the attempt to readjust the falling-off in trade, the varying employment and the uncertainty of employment for a section of the people, some weeks more and some weeks less. That means that people have to live near the source of their employment. Now, if the railways have already profited by the dismissal of so many men, I think they should now be at the minimum number, and they ought be provided for under this Bill. I certainly do agree if the Railway Board is put into the position of being a judge of what is misconduct or incapacity, no ordinary workingman would have any earthly chance. The impoverishment of the railways would be bad for the country, but the impoverishment of the proletariat would be worse. It takes moral courage to say, as I say, that I do not understand the Bill, but I do understand the arguments. In Section 3, sub-section (1) there is a clause which does not cover this. It refers here in Section 1 to schedule 3.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We are dealing with Section 2, sub-section 1. There is no reference to any schedule in that.

If the company has now the minimum number of workers the trade of the country, if anything, is increasing.

A SENATOR

It is decreasing.

If it is decreasing the company should have had sufficient perspicacity to dismiss the workers before they took over. Arbitrary employment is the cause of a great deal of trouble in this city, and it is the cause of a great deal of misery, too. Lately on the Greater Dublin Commission we went into the question of slums. We found that it was mainly caused by uncertain employment. At the same time it is preposterous to suggest that any business could be run if dictated to by its employees. With the powers that the railway directors have there is a want of foresight if they have to insist on this arbitrary method regarding employment in future.

I have listened very closely to the arguments advanced by Senators in favour of this amendment and these arguments appear to be that because certain provisions of the Act are capable of being abused, then they should be removed altogether. That seems an extreme argument. As the amendment stands now, it would, if passed, make the railways uneconomic for all time. If there is a possibility of abuse why does not the Senator put up an amendment that would close the door to abuse?

On a point of explanation, I want to say that I am not seeking to alter the Principal Act at all. This Bill simply alters the Principal Act. I do not suggest that the present Bill was capable of certain things. I said it was impossible under the Bill as it now stands for any man in nineteen out of twenty cases to prove his claim to compensation, no matter how strong his claim was.

The alternative is that no railway employee can be got rid of except through misconduct or incapacity. The Minister, I am sure, will throw further light on that. I am honestly anxious to give a fair vote on this matter.

Before the Minister replies there is one question I would like to have answered. That question is this: If, before the amalgamation took place, or if it never took place, any portion of one of these lines were closed down entirely, what would be the position of the employees on that line that had been shut down? Would they be entitled to compensation?

No; they would get no compensation.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is clear, of course, The question would never have arisen. They were then ordinary servants and subject to the rules of ordinary employment. It is only by reason of compulsory amalgamation that the question arises.

In the event of amalgamation not taking place, some of the lines would have certainly been shut down.

That is only an assumption.

In that case what compensation would they get?

None. I will take this amendment No. 2 and amendment 9 to Section 4 together. It is quite gratuitous to bring these people under Section 2 in this Bill at all and to give them any compensation. As far as having any objection to that, I could very easily have left them out of the schedule of the measure. Now I will take amendment No. 9, which aims at Section 4, which is the more important section and goes to the root of the whole Railway Bill. When the House passed the Compensation Schedule in the Act of 1924 it was on this basis that people should get compensation where they were being dismissed or given duties that diminished pay, and various other things; where that was due to amalgamation, then there should be compensation, and not in any other case; and that the amalgamated companies should have the same right to dismissal where trade fell off as any of the non-associated companies had before the Act was passed. I put it that that was the principle under which the Third Schedule of the Railway Act operated.

If that principle be admitted we say here that if a man's service becomes unnecessary, consequent on changes of administration due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies affected by or under the Principal Act, and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by these various things, decrease of traffic, and so on, we want to get the Seanad to consider those various other things. Is it the contention of any person in this House that if ten employees in the amalgamated company are thrown out of employment, by reasons shown to be due to a decrease of traffic, that these employees are to get compensation? If anybody argues that, then he can vote for this amendment. I hold that where men are dismissed through a decrease of traffic then the company should not have to pay compensation. Senators have talked of that, and said that the company need only say that it is due to a decrease of traffic. They have a great deal more to do than that. They have to prove it to the satisfaction of the arbitrator. Senator Gogarty has also said: "What is the good of these workmen coming before a railway board armed with those figures, and how are they going to decide?" The railway company has nothing to do with this decision. The railway company has to bring forward its evidence, and if that evidence is not accepted by the arbitrator, then compensation will have to be paid by them.

To what extent will this decrease in traffic affect the worker?

The amalgamated company will have to show that the dismissal was caused by a decrease in traffic.

A decrease of 100 per cent.?

No. It must be shown to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that the dismissal is caused by a decrease in the traffic.

If there is not enough work through any other cause can they put it down to decrease in traffic?

I do not understand the Senator. Is it a reasonable thing to say that if they can prove a decrease in traffic is the cause of a man's dismissal that then they should pay compensation?

CATHAOIRLEACH

It would be better if Senator Farren would make his own speech later on. It is hard for the Minister to be consecutive in his arguments when he has to answer these interruptions.

What I said with regard to that argument applies to every one of those other things. Is it considered to be an unsound and unfair thing that if a man's dismissal is due to a reduction in renewal or maintenance work, or to the introduction of improved methods of working or other economic causes, that should carry with it compensation? I hold it should not, and I ask the House to agree to that. Economic causes—the Senator says that in the last resort, if they had not any definite thing to put forward, then they can put forward economic causes. They must define the economic causes and show that to the satisfaction of the arbitrator. What is to be the effect of the amendment? That you take the number of railway employees in the service of different companies on the day of amalgamation and you stereotype that number for all time except where you can prove a man's incapacity or misconduct. Is it to be considered right that a company should be burdened with a considerable number of men that they took into their services on the day of the amalgamation, and that they should not have the right every one of these companies had prior to amalgamation to dismiss them for any economic cause? Senator O'Farrell and also Senator Gogarty said that the railways have now a minimum staff. I would like to know what would the railway employees think of a situation arising here as arose in England recently, when the orders given were:—"Recruit your staff, not to the numbers previously employed, but up to your traffic requirements." It is absurd to say the railways here are down to traffic requirements. Does he think that a full 100 per cent. of the workers would be required? I should say that 75 per cent. would not be an overestimate of the number that would be taken on. One has only to consider the amount of traffic carried over the lines from 1917 to 1923, and consider the decrease last year, and consider whether there is not sufficient cause in that decrease to have a considerable number of men dismissed. I heard today that the number was 3,000, but I never before heard it put higher than 1,000; so that it is late in the day to have the number more than doubled.

Do not let there be any consideration here for the railway management. I do not want it for them, nor do I ask for any consideration for the railway shareholders; they will be affected only indirectly by this Bill. They will be affected only if the railways are so impoverished that they become an insolvent concern. We are asked to stereotype the number of employees, but remember you have to pay for stereotyping the number of railway servants. We hear business men talking about traffic rates. We hear of farmers making demands for a reduction of rates. It is the railway users who have to pay if this amendment is passed.

You stereotype the number of railway employees at 17,000, the number taken over, and make the company keep them without advertence to the trade conditions, and you cannot dismiss a man for anything except incapacity or misconduct. The railway management will say: "Very well; it does not matter. We have a good case to go before the Railway Tribunal for an increase of rates, and the man who pays in the long run will be the railway user." The business man and the farmers' representatives here should have that before them, and think long before they pass any wild amendment of this sort that Senator O'Farrell has down. I put it again as the basis of compensation: was redundancy due to amalgamation? The section in the Bill in no way interferes with that principle. I ask the Senators to consider these matters. Is it considered right that the men should be paid compensation for any of these things mentioned, other than that?

The Minister inadvertently gave away his whole case, and then put forward the best argument that could be advanced in favour of the amendment. The particular amendment under discussion is the principal one that has to be considered in connection with this Bill. It seeks to retain what was guaranteed to the workers under the Railways Act of 1924. When that Act was being put through here employees of the railway companies that were being amalgamated were guaranteed certain things, and we thought it was too good to be true. We thought in 1924 there was a change of heart, that at last these class distinctions we hear so much about were to be removed, and barriers broken down, that at last the working-class people were going to get the same treatment as everybody else. But we counted our chickens too soon. Suddenly the railway companies set to work and brought pressure to bear on the Government to take away from the working-class employed on the railways what had been granted to them under the 1924 Act. When I was at school there were a few lines we used to read, and I think they are repeated still:

Give a thing, take it back,

God will ask you where is that.

If you say you do not know

God will send you down below.

You gave the working-class people certain rights—the same rights as you guarantee to the shareholders of the amalgamated company—that their dividends would be secured. There is nothing in this Bill to take these away. The Minister has said so, and I take it the Minister knows.

There is nothing about dividends. I said revenue.

Is it not the same thing?

Ask the railway shareholders.

We say the working people employed by the railway company were given certain rights under the 1924 Act. We are not asking for any extension of them; we are simply asking that the rights granted be maintained. Of course the House may take these rights away, we may be outvoted on this amendment, but that would not dispose of the justice of our claim. The arguments put forward by Senator O'Farrell ought to convince members of this House that the amendment ought to be adopted. If it is not adopted the Bill so far as we are concerned is of no further use to us. We are satisfied that if the section now before the House is passed without amendment it will be impossible for any working man who is employed by any of the railway companies and who loses his employment because of the amalgamation to prove that he was dismissed because of the amalgamation. If the section as it stands is passed the dice will be loaded against the workers. You can carry that section if you wish, but if you do we are satisfied that you will be deliberately taking away from a large number of industrious, hardworking people the rights you gave them under the 1924 Act. If you do that, on your heads be the result.

I want to correct a misapprehension which has been conveyed by the Minister. He says the claim is to stereotype all the employees for all time that were employed at the time of amalgamation. There is no such claim. There is on the railways, as in most other companies, a more or less floating staff of about 5 per cent. There are people coming and going, retiring, dying, or being dismissed, so that you will have a floating staff of 1,000 out of 20,000 employees.

The company would save practically all redundancies by simply holding their hands for a year or thereabouts, and recruiting no new staff until they had finally absorbed those for whom work was not available. Surely the Minister and the House will admit that there must be some people redundant in any case, because of the amalgamation taking away sixteen headquarters and amalgamating them into one. You must have some redundancies, otherwise it was a farce bringing in the Third Schedule. The Minister's contention seems to be there should be nothing paid by way of compensation to them. The Minister seems to suggest that this is a matter between the railway users and the railway employees.

In other words, he brings in a measure and says that one small section of the people shall have to bear the trials and tragedies that are necessary in order that the public, as a whole, may profit. That is preposterous and is equivalent to confiscation, and if a similar proposal proceeded from this side of the House it would be regarded as syndicalism and Bolshevism. It is confiscating the rights of a small section in the interests of the community —that is what the Minister says. He knows that will appeal to the gallery. Every person outside who pays 6d. for a ticket will feel the Minister is acting in his interest, and robbing the railway men in order that he may get his ticket at 5d. or 5½d. He does not say that the protection afforded the shareholders should be taken away that the community as a whole may gain. It would be impossible to go on discussing the subsequent stages of the Bill if this amendment is not accepted in some form. The Minister has not relaxed. He knows what the result would be. He is asking the Committee to pass this amendment, and he probably will get it passed. The responsibility will not be ours. The result of it will be legalised robbery, taking deliberately away from men by a deliberative assembly every right of any consequence they possess given under the Railways Act. No amount of camouflage, or special pleading, or smart retorts, or bitterness, or playing with words will alter that fact, and the House knows that.

The House should not lie under the impression that there is anything in the imputation of legalized robbery. The Senator has not dealt with the point that if a man is dismissed because of decrease of traffic compensation should not be paid. Not a word has been said about that.

On a point of explanation, practically the whole of the work staff have been working only four days a week for the past twelve months, and they have made no claim for compensation.

The phrase "legalized robbery" has been used. The robbery is this, that the decreased traffic may lead to dismissal without compensation. That is what the House has to face up to. The only alternative offered to it is that you take a number of men in the railway employment, and say you cannot dismiss them for any cause without compensation except for misconduct or incapacity.

What about economic causes?

Economic causes are not in the Senator's amendment. Is it right if a man is dismissed and his dismissal is due to economic causes and not to amalgamation that any compensation should be paid? The Senator referred to my remarks about railway users. It is certain that the railway users will have to meet the Bill for whatever the Senator's amendment puts on the company. With regard to the reference to the sixpenny ticket that a man may get for fivepence halfpenny, I have never stood for this, that someone could come and say: "We are paying sixpence, and if no compensation were paid, we could have it for fivepence halfpenny." If it is necessary to pay compensation to a man whose dismissal is due to amalgamation—and that is based on the 1924 Act—it is quite definitely preserved here. The only things taken away are the items I have referred to, and not one of them has been argued against.

I would call the Minister's attention to the fact that on numerous occasions the Government have supported the principle in the amendment with reference to other bodies. When the question was raised of not giving pension rights to solicitors to county councils, strong objections were made to that by a Minister. Now when Senators contend that these people who are being done away with should be compensated the Minister adopts a different attitude.

What is the connection between pension rights and this question we are considering?

It has been always maintained in the Seanad by the Minister that anyone who had any rights should not be deprived of those rights.

I say definitely that anybody who was given in the 1924 Act a right to compensation still has that right.

Senator Farren spoke very strongly in support of the claim made on behalf of the railway men. I feel, however, that his contention seems to involve that no man could be dismissed for any reason.

Might I suggest to the Minister that the section be left over for consideration?

It is going before the Seanad as representing my best.

If the Minister gets a majority in favour of his idea, it will be a barren victory. A decrease in traffic as a result of amalgamation could easily be shown by the railway managers, and that would deprive the worker, who would, as a consequence of that decrease, be dismissed, of the right of compensation. Amalgamation naturally causes a diversion of traffic, and consequently certain areas would show a decrease of traffic. The people who will suffer from this alleged decrease in traffic will not be entitled to any compensation whatever. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to allow this sub-section to stand over until the Report Stage, and to look into it with a view to meeting the objections from these benches.

Is there a solitary instance where a decrease of traffic has led to the dismissal of a director?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 22.

Tá.

  • Sir E. Bellingham.
  • W. Cummins.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • M. Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • O. St. John Gogarty.
  • Francis MacGuinness.
  • James MacKean.
  • Colonel Maurice Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • W. O'Sullivan.

Níl.

  • Thomas W. Bennett.
  • John Bagwell.
  • John Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown.
  • Mrs. E. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • B. Haughton.
  • A. Jackson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • C. Kennedy.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • Dowager Countess of Desart.
  • James Douglas.
  • Sir N.T. Everard.
  • M. Fitzgerald.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • H.S. Guinness.
  • James Moran.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • Michael O'Hanlon.
  • B. O'Rourke.
  • Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared lost.

In view of that decision we have decided we can move no more of the amendments in our names, as it would be farcical discussing the remaining stages of the Bill while Sections 2 and 4 stand as they are. We offer no disrespect to the House, but we will not take part in the discussion of the remaining stages. We congratulate the House on what it has done, and the Minister in sustaining a clause which robs 17,000 workers of the rights previously conferred on them by the Oireachtas.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I doubt if that little speech is in order, but in view of the feeling there is in your Party I do not object to your making it.

Would it be possible to have amendments 3 and 8 moved, or must I put them down for the Report Stage?

CATHAOIRLEACH

The House will observe that there are two amendments, Nos. 3 and 8, standing in the name of Senator Farren. The Senator, in whose name these amendments stand, is not here, but if any other Senator wishes to move them he will be in order.

I move:—

In Section 2, sub-section (1) to delete in line 32 the word "directly."

I think this is going to give rise to endless trouble, and I think the word "directly" ought to be left in.

The Minister, on Second Reading, threw out the suggestion that somebody should move this amendment. I support the amendment.

I may say that I was agreeable to having the word taken out, but I was careful to guard myself by saying that it would depend on the way this House regarded it. As far as I am concerned I offer no opposition.

You have practically accepted it.

Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Question—"That Sections 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move:—

"In Section 4, page 3, to delete in line 39 the word "directly."

Amendment put.
Division called for.

As a layman may I ask for some direction as to the meaning of the word "directly"?

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is a bit late now as a division has been called for. I do not know that it requires a very high standard of intelligence to know the meaning of the word "directly."

That occurs on the agenda and it will embrace the other amendments.

CATHAOIRLEACH

There is no amendment on the paper to delete it if it does occur.

The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 11.

Tá.

  • Thomas W. Bennett.
  • Sir E. Bellingham.
  • Mrs. E. Costello.
  • J. Douglas.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Sir J.P. Griffith.
  • H.S. Guinness.
  • C. Kennedy.
  • T. Linehan.
  • F. MacGuinness.
  • J. O'Connor.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • B. O'Rourke.
  • W. O'Sullivan.
  • Thomas Toal.

Níl.

  • J. Bagwell.
  • S.L. Brown.
  • J.C. Counihan.
  • Countess of Desart.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • Martin Fitzgerald.
  • B. Haughton.
  • A. Jackson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • John McLoughlin.
  • James Moran.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 4, as amended, and Sections 5 to 9 inclusive and the Title, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill, with amendments, reported.
Barr
Roinn