Senators will note that the amendment now being circulated relates to the Bill as amended by the Dáil.
Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961. - Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961: Committee and Final Stages.
Therefore, what we have in front of us as subsection (4) is subsection (3) in the Bill?
Yes.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Does this section refer to the trade dispute with the E.S.B. or does it refer to the trade dispute with a number of employers?
The trade dispute, as we understand it, involves the members of the national Joint Industrial Council.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move the amendment standing in my name:
In the last line of subsection (3) to delete "other" and substitute "lower."
I put down this amendment because of what was said in the course of the Second Reading this afternoon. When I was stressing the point that what was being asked for by the Government was legislation to prevent an employer paying a rate higher than that fixed by the tribunal, I understood the Taoiseach to imply in an interjection that the difficulty might be to get some employers to pay the rate as determined by the tribunal and that it was a means of forcing certain employers, who might not be very willing to do so at present, to agree to implement a certain rate. I also had regard to the speech made by Senator Hayes who took strong objection to the fact that employers who might be so willing might be precluded and prevented from paying a higher rate than that determined by the tribunal. The third reason for putting down the amendment was because of my own knowledge of the practice in many skilled trades, not alone electricians. It is the practice with many employers to pay above what is termed the "district rate" if they get a particularly suitable skilled craftsman. He may be a long time with the firm; they may want to keep him because he knows the job and is particularly suitable. That higher rate continues despite changes in the district rate. I think it is usually written into any settlement or agreement that additions to the district rate will continue to apply.
As prudent people, I think we must also have regard to the probability that the result of the strike, the eventual settlement, will be a determining factor in settling rates of pay for most skilled craftsmen in the country. It is probably inevitable that whatever is eventually agreed and accepted for the electricians will be agreed and implemented for tradesmen generally. There may be regional differences but it will tend to set the pattern. As reasonable people Senators will appreciate that it would be unlikely, for example, that skilled engineering workers would be likely to accept a lesser increase than that agreed for the electricians. This will therefore set the pattern for skilled trades in what is now apparently a national round of increases.
Among other skilled craftsmen as well as among the electricians there is this practice of paying a "plus" on the district rate, again if a person is a long time with a particular employer or is particularly suitable. It would be very unwise—this whole Bill is unwise, I think—but it would be particularly unwise to write into this a provision, which would be taken as a precedent and regarded as good practice, for wiping out from now on any "plus" rates that may be in existence for particular craftsmen. One can imagine if that is to be the situation the amount of resentment and opposition that would be generated not alone among the electricians but among craftsmen generally, if they find the outcome of this kind of measure is to be that whatever settlement is reached will become the maximum rate and that employers will be encouraged by this—they are being precluded in this instance but other employers will be encouraged—to wipe out any "plus" rates they may be paying to craftsmen at present. I suggest therefore that it is a good idea to remove the word "other" in the concluding line of subsection (3) and insert the word "lower". The subsection would then read:
It shall not be lawful for an employer to pay to any person to whom the determination of the tribunal applies wages at a rate lower than that so determined.
They may, if they so wish, pay a higher rate but they should not be precluded by an Act of the Oireachtas from so doing. That would be a very dangerous thing to do and I think it would be most unwise for the Minister to stand over it and I hope he will agree to accept this amendment.
I have listened with amazement to the proposal of Senator Murphy in regard to a Bill which the Labour Party, or at least the trade unions, have described as giving compulsory arbitration against the unions. Now, he wants to amend this section to make it compulsory on the employers without having recourse to collective bargaining. I suggest that if some figure comes out of this, let it be there, but why should not the trade unions come to the organised employers and work out what the figure should be, whether it should be the figure resulting from this Bill or not? Suppose private enterprise cannot afford it, must it be imposed regardless of ability to pay and merely because it is reached as a result of this Bill? I think it is a most inconsistent and extraordinary attitude to object to having its provisions used against yourself and at the same time seek to have its provisions used against the employers.
It is not the purpose of this Bill to upset, nor is it intended to upset, the ordinary principle of wage fixation by negotiation. As the Taoiseach pointed out on a number of occasions the desire of the Government is that the wage rates in this dispute will eventually—we hope very soon— be fixed as a result of ordinary negotiation but if that process fails to the point where a crisis occurs in the electric power supply of the country the intention is that this tribunal will fix a rate above or below which it will not be lawful for an employer to pay for a cooling-off period. That cooling-off period may be very short because even if such a tribunal did fix a rate to be applicable it will still be possible for the parties concerned to arrive at a settlement as a result of ordinary negotiations.
I want to deny the suggestion of Senator Murphy that the rate fixed by this tribunal will be accepted as the basis for the fixation of rates in kindred employment. That will not be the case. That is not going to be the case and he knows well it is so.
The Labour Court has already given a recommendation on that.
Unfortunately the Labour Court award was not accepted by the employees and negotiations were facilitated by the Minister for Transport and Power in the interests of the public and to avoid the crisis that threatened grave consequences and which is still a danger. The Taoiseach has stated it was not the intention when introducing this measure, in view of the negotiations now being sought by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to impose this figure as the rate to be generally applicable. It is to be applicable only to workers engaged in this strike and only for a cooling-off period until such time as a rate is arrived at by ordinary negotiation.
The Minister is going into the general principle of the Bill while I am trying to confine the amendment to this situation: when the tribunal does meet and does fix rates, we are saying in this subsection that no employer may pay any higher than the rate laid down by the tribunal, even though he may wish to do so.
No employer whose workers are involved in this dispute.
Yes. The Minister has already told me that it involves other employees. Can the Minister tell me now that it is not the practice among some electrical contractors to pay well above the district rate?
But they are not involved.
These men are on strike in support of a claim by their union for one shilling an hour extra. I am afraid Senators opposite know nothing about the general practice in industry in this country. This is really heavy-handed legislation. It is the practice among many employers to pay above the district rate and when there is a change in the district rate, they continue to pay above any new rate fixed. If the district rate changes from 5s. to 6s., and these employers were paying twopence or threepence above the district rate, they still pay that amount extra on the new rate. There are a few instances of employers who have settled, who have agreed to pay the rate sought by the union. There may be conditions attached to their settlement: they may go back to the district rate when that is fixed under a national settlement. Here, I am not referring to those employers who have settled. I am referring to those other employers who have the practice of paying to key men and others rates above the district rate.
In this subsection, you are going to make it unlawful for them to continue that practice. You are seriously embarrassing those people. You must remember here that you are dealing with skilled craftsmen for whom there is a keen demand across the water. Before this crisis, I spoke to a contractor who told me about the difficulty of getting skilled electricians. Employers across the water, he said, were even offering those men free flights home once a month to see their people in order to get hold of them. Consequently, employers must pay such men extra in order to keep them here. If the Minister says it is not the practice for some employers to pay above the district rate, then my argument goes by the board. My information is the contrary. It may not be very widespread but it does happen.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, John J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carton, Victor.
- Cole, John C.
- Colley, Harry.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Dillon, Gerard B.
- Donegan, Patrick.
- Dowdall, Jane.
- Farnan, Robert P.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGuire, Edward A.
- O Ciosáin, Eamon.
- O Donnabháin, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- O Grádaigh, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Walsh, Louis.
Níl
- Browne, Edward.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Keeffe, James J.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Seán Ó Donnabháin and Ted O'Sullivan; Níl: Senators Murphy and Miss Davidson.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The first point I wish to raise is in respect of subsection (1) It does not seem to me that the tribunal can operate at all because the tribunal is empowered to fix only a rate of wages. As I understand the position, the number of hours per week is also a matter in dispute. Unless the hours per week are fixed, there can be no determination of the rate of wages by the tribunal. Could the Minister say how it is intended the tribunal should operate within the terms of reference given in subsection (1)?
The number of hours per week are no longer in dispute between the parties.
That may be so but they may be in dispute when it comes to fixing the rates of wages. However, that is a matter for the Minister and the Government. A more important point is this. If the Government are serious about the elaborate provisions in regard to offences under Section 6 and Section 8, there is no provision in this section, where I would expect to find it, with regard to the promulgation of the rate of wages fixed by the tribunal. Under the Labour Court, the procedure is quite simple. The Labour Court is a body corporate provided with a seal and official notice must be taken of every document sealed. There is no such provision in relation to this tribunal, no provision for publication by way of order to be made by the tribunal, by way of publication in Iris Oifigiúil or, as one sees in some acts from time to time, “publication in the manner best calculated to bring to the notice of the public what is contained in the order.”
If we are to enact legislation, even in the alleged panic circumstances of the present time, then we ought to enact it properly. I think the Minister should indicate to the House now how it is intended to operate Section 6 in relation to any offence which may be committed under it. I cannot see how it can be implemented. It might be a great relief to a great many people to learn that it cannot be implemented.
As it is now 11.30 p.m., perhaps the House will decide whether or not to continue because the House must vary its original order.
It would be better to continue until the Bill is finished.
Until when?
Say another quarter of an hour.
Twelve midnight.
The Cork Gas Order went on after twelve o'clock.
Let us say twelve o'clock pro tem.
The answer to Senator O'Quigley is that the rates determined by the tribunal can be proved as a fact like any other piece of evidence.
If the Minister is right in that it will be unnecessary to adopt the various procedures provided in the Industrial Relations Act. Apart from that, an employer who pays a rate higher than the rate struck—that would be an offence under subsection (3)—need only say that he has never seen any document; the figure was never published anywhere. That will be a perfect answer.
The Senator ought to know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
There is a method prescribed by statute as to how such information should be published. In that case the situation is clear. A man is fixed with notice of it.
Provision is made here for a tribunal consisting of a chairman and at least two other members. Would the Minister give the House an indication of what he intends in this regard? If, as is probable, it is intended that trade unions should participate, whom has the Minister in mind to appoint to this tribunal? I think the situation would arise in which they also could not participate. Whom has the Minister in mind?
The tribunal proposed in the negotiations envisaged a Supreme Court judge to act as chairman, two trade union nominees, a nominee of the E.S.B. and a nominee of the independent contractors. The intention would be to follow some such pattern in this tribunal.
On the question of the appointment of a Supreme Court judge a practical difficulty arises. This Bill touches very closely on matters fundamental to trade unionism and matters of high constitutional importance. That cannot be gainsaid. The Minister should take account of the possibility of trade unions seeking an injunction to restrain the tribunal from proceeding. That might put a Supreme Court judge, acting as chairman of the tribunal, in a very invidious position. Likewise it would put his colleague in the Supreme Court in a very invidious position. While it would be difficult to get better than a Supreme Court judge, or any judge for that matter because of the confidence all classes repose in judges, there is a danger which should not be ignored. A very sorry situation could arise if a judge of the High Court had to issue an injunction against his superior in the Supreme Court. The Minister should consider the objectionable position that might arise in those circumstances.
It is not essential that a judge should be chairman but a judge is often asked to act as chairman on bodies like this because he is presumed to be absolutely independent. He is experienced in assessing evidence and he has the capacity to weigh information. Some other person might be just as acceptable as chairman. The Senator should know that any injunction sought would be an injunction against the tribunal and not just against the chairman. The Senator also knows that the Supreme Court can sit with less than five judges. If five are essential, then a judge of the High Court can sit on the Supreme Court bench.
The Minister said he envisages appointing two nominees from the trade unions, presumably one from each union. Suppose the trade unions refuse to participate. There is provision under this section to compel people concerned to give evidence, answer questions and produce documents. Would that provision apply also to people who were nominated to sit on this tribunal? Would the unions be compelled, under threat of fine, to nominate? The Minister knows well that the trade unions are opposed to this and they will presumably decline to participate in compulsory arbitration. The Minister must have something in mind to deal with that situation. Does he envisage compelling trade unions to nominate people to sit on this tribunal?
That is a fantastic suggestion.
How will he get his nominees. Does he assume that the trade unions will capitulate? Does he anticipate that they will surrender their principles, join in this compulsory arbitration, and nominate people to sit on this tribunal to do this dirty work? The Minister must have something in mind. He has asked the Seanad to pass this and to accept the section.
It is my hope that the ordinary process of negotiation will make it unnecessary to set up this body.
We know all that. Is the Minister serious in asking the Seanad to pass this? He hopes and we all hope that it will not be necessary to invoke this compulsory arbitration but he is providing for the circumstances in which it will be invoked.
Could it not be that the circumstances in which it would have to be invoked will not arise, given goodwill and a sense of responsibility? Is that not a possibility?
Quite a reasonable possibility.
The trade union movement are opposed to compulsory arbitration. Does the Minister think the trade union movement will accept it? Does he think these two trade unions will at that stage agree to nominate people and if they will not, will he compel them, under threat of fine or imprisonment, to sit on the tribunal?
If the circumstances that would lead to the setting up of that tribunal were brought about, the Senator knows well there would be thousands disemployed and I should imagine that it would be in the interests of the trade unions to facilitate any provisions that would bring about a cessation of these conditions.
I have every confidence in the goodwill and good sense of the trade unions——
Leave it at that.
——that they will fix the dispute without any compulsory arbitration. However, I am asking the Minister what he is going to do in the circumstances of compulsory arbitration.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Before this section passes, I was not here when Senator O'Quigley was speaking but his attack on the Minister for Transport and Power, which was a repetition of the attack made by some of his colleagues in the Dáil, was most unjustified and one that ought to be deprecated by all decent Senators.
I hope the Minister will do something about the failure of the Minister for Transport and Power——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Again, I am in some doubt about this provision for penalties. In subsection (2) of this section, it says every person who aids, abets, assists, counsels or procures another person to commit an offence under this Act shall be guilty of an offence. If an employer wants to pay something over this rate and overcomes this provision by providing special overtime rates, special travelling allowances, and so on, will that be regarded as an offence? Will he be committing an offence by circumventing that provision?
Secondly, would the trade union people who are against this principle of compulsory arbitration be liable to prosecution if they continue to agitate, as I think they will continue to agitate against this principle of compulsory arbitration? Are members of the trade union movement going to be arrested and put in jail under this section? If trade union leaders are to be prosecuted for this sort of thing I can assure the Minister he will have plenty of work prosecuting these people. He will not shut up the trade union movement by any legislation like this. The whole principle is wrong. This legislation is unnecessary and I do hope it will never be necessary to invoke subsection (2) of this section. The mere use of the jackboot, which seems to be the attitude of Fianna Fáil, will not achieve anything. I am confident that the trade union movement will display a sense of responsibility and that there will be an amicable settlement without having this sort of legislation forced down their throats.
Would the Minister for Industry and Commerce tell us in what respect this differs from the corresponding provisions of the wages standstill order?
That is a different matter altogether.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is probably beyond the Minister at this hour of the night.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.