David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Bill sets out in section 3 how this would work in practice. As Deputy Quinlivan said, and as I hope all members will agree, the situation at the moment is entirely unreasonable. There are many workers in this State who are working 30 or 40 hours a week for some companies, often for five years, ten years or more, yet their contracts are for ten or 15 hours a week. The Bill essentially allows workers to have contracts which are reflective of the actual hours that they do. It allows for the Workplace Relations Commission to be the adjudicating body in this regard. At the moment we have situations where people are stuck in low hour contracts but are actually doing more hours for year upon year, but they have no recourse to ask for their contracts to be changed. The Bill allows for the employee to make a reasonable request of their employer, if after six months the average hours worked are less than what is in their contract, to move into the band that is reflective of their actual hours. If that is refused then there must be reasonable grounds for a refusal, which are set out in the Bill. It then goes to the Workplace Relations Commission which adjudicates on it. Obviously it would have to look at a whole range of issues.

In respect of some of the criticism of the Bill, no Bill is without its shortcomings. We did say on Second Stage that if people were genuinely supportive of the broad thrust of the Bill, but had concerns around some elements, that we would be open to amendments on Committee Stage. If there are any criticisms of the interpretations of different elements of the Bill rather than its substance, then I obviously want to hear those. We are very much open to supporting amendments in that regard. We are very clear, and were very clear on Second Stage, that this Bill does not allow workers to ask for an increase in their hours. That is an entirely different issue, one that this committee should perhaps consider. The issue of people who are on low hour contracts and who want to work more hours is a separate issue, but we are very clear about what this Bill does. All the Bill does is it allows workers, who have been working for an average of 30 or 40 hours per week for six months or more in this State, to have contracts that are reflective of the hours that they do. There are lots of other issues such as zero hour contracts, precarious work and requests for additional hours. They are all very reasonable issues and would be good issues for this committee to deal with, but they are not what this Bill seeks to address. It simply seeks to address the issue of "if and when" contracts.

It is true that Tesco, Penneys and Marks and Spencer have, through dialogue with Mandate, Unite and other trade unions, agreed to use these banded hour contracts. They do use them and, in fact, have moved from banded hour contracts to more secure contracts, which is what we want. I hope that everybody here wants a situation where workers have proper terms and conditions of employment and proper contracts which are fair and which reflect the hours that they do. I hope I have addressed the questions that were asked but I want to be very clear because it has been raised on Second Stage by some who have opposed the Bill, that this Bill is about allowing workers to request additional hours. It does not allow this and that is certainly not the intention of the Bill.