David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirleach. It is very strange for me to be on this side of the room but new politics is throwing up new situations. I am pleased to be here and happy that the joint committee is examining this issue.

The exploitation of people on low hour contracts, especially in the retail sector but also across many other sectors is an important issue. This Bill will allow workers to apply for a contract that is reflective of their actual working week. Unfortunately we have far too many instances of workers who were on contracts of 15 hours or less for ten years, working 30 and 40 hours week in and week out. This is a way for some companies to exploit their workers.

This Bill offers a solution. It seeks to provide that a worker or his or her trade union representative or a representative acting on his or her behalf is entitled after six months of continuous employment with his or her employer to make a request in writing to be moved to a weekly band of hours, reflective of his or her actual working week, as set out in the Bill. Under the existing legislation, Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, there is no obligation on an employer to consider such a request. It does not allow workers to demand additional hours. It merely gives a contractual basis to the actual existing working week relationship that is already in place. The Bill provides that the employer must comply or set out that it is not economically feasible. The employer must demonstrate that the business is experiencing severe financial difficulties, such that there would be a substantial risk that the workers would be made redundant if the hours were granted, the sustainability of the business would be adversely affected or the business could not sustain the increased level of hours. In the event that a worker disagrees with the employer's refusal on the grounds set out in the legislation, the complaints procedure would be through the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Bill also includes an obligation on the employer to inform all employees of the overall availability of working hours by displaying this information in a prominent position in the place of employment. The Bill is earnest in its intent and would fix a problem which many low paid workers and workers who are on low hour if and when contracts in this State. More specifically it looks to the business model built on a system of low hour contracts. It is simply unjustifiable for employers to keep the bulk of their staff on close to full time hours but signed up to part-time contracts, as it pushes these people into poverty and into a position where they cannot plan for their families and their futures. It creates undue hardship to mothers who struggle to deal with child care arrangements and families cannot be sure of what they will earn from one end of the month to the other. It is used by some employers as a punitive technique - complain and one's hours will be cut with no legal recourse. It should be noted that research by EUROSTAT, the Nevin Economic Research Institute and others shows that people on low hours or temporary contracts are more at risk of being low paid. We also know that precarious working conditions are on the increase across a rising number of sectors, including the Civil Service, nursing and teaching. There is an onus on the State to regulate the labour market and ensure that workers' rights, in terms of pay and conditions are protected in law. The idea that the market must be free to compete without undue interference ignores the reasonable voice of workers and the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Low pay, precarious working hours and the chipping away of workers' rights are bad for the economy and for society. We could paper the walls of this committee room with the amount of research reports which consistently show the link between precarious work, precarious hours, if and when contracts, zero hour contracts and the growth of inequality. An unregulated labour market is in nobody's interests. It dehumanises workers, puts huge pressure on the State in terms of social transfers, reduced people's disposable income and impoverishes households and children. This is absolutely unnecessary and serves an employment model whereby employers want to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to use the full weight of their power and political influence to skew the balance of power in their favour by refusing workers real and meaningful access to collective bargaining, while on the other they argue against protective, statutory measures around pay and conditions to set a basic threshold of decency.

Go raibh maith agat. I look forward to any questions that members have.