Dr. Desmond Ryan:

This point goes directly to the potential hybrid between the industrial relations influence of the Bill and the protective employment legislation influence of it. A couple of technical points are very relevant to the Senator's question. Any appeal from the Workplace Relations Commission as provided for in section 4(6) goes to the Labour Court and that appeal is to be heard, unless there are very compelling reasons otherwise, in public with the parties identified and the determination published. That is unlike the situation in the Workplace Relations Commission to which the Senator alluded. The consequences of exposure or a finding of breach under section 4 of this Bill would have severe and, it appears, irrevocable implications for the employer. There is no provision in the legislation as drafted - and this goes back to Deputy Collins's question on constitutionality - for the employer in the context of a diminishing profitability or need for expanded hours to seek to have the worker revert back to the previous hours, nor is there provision in respect of inferences. I urge the committee to consider the inferences point as going specifically to this question. If we think about the 21-day time period in section 3, after the worker makes the request and while the employer is trying to collate the data to assess the financial viability of the proposal, a further 20 requests may come in within ten days. These requests themselves will have implications for the data and whether the hours are going to be available. Suddenly there are only 11 days left within which to take this reasoned decision and communicate it. The complete lack of any basis to allow the employer either to look for extra time or explain why it could not provide the decision is a problem in the proposal. I emphasise again that in terms of the aim that is being pursued it can be done. However, it needs much more nuance in section 3.