Ms Marguerite Bolger:

Absolutely not. It is clear the person has to have established a pattern of that work over the period of six months or whatever period it is decided might be appropriate. This is not a case of, for example, a part-time worker who would like to work full time and asking to work full time. Incidentally, the worker is entitled to do that under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. There is nothing to stop a person seeking to move to full-time work and not be penalised as a result but that does not involve an entitlement to be given it. In this case a person looks for hours to reflect what he or she has worked. That is why we are so critical of the use of the word "exceeds" in section 3 rather than the word "reflects". As the Bill is currently drafted it does entitle someone to apply to get hours and contractual recognition for hours the person is not actually working. I emphasise "reflects" because that word was used repeatedly by Deputy Cullinane in his submissions to the committee and it is a good word. At the risk of repetition it reflects exactly what the Bill seems to be trying to achieve.

The committee might want to work a little harder on the formula for six, nine or 12 months and what sort of proof a person must show of having worked those hours. It is very simple. If I show that I have worked a regular pattern of these hours they are no longer the gift of my employer, they become my entitlement. The concern that this is something an employer will have to give in excess of what it is already giving perhaps comes from the wording of the section. Outside that, if the Bill was redrafted to do what it is intended to do that should not be a concern.