Dr. Desmond Ryan:

I accept that the idea of extremely precarious work practices where there is a lack of clarity and certainty about when an individual will be working is presumptively problematic. This was referred to in the questions posed to us in being invited here and included, for example, an individual's capacity to save money and to have a modicum of a sense of security within the role they are carrying out. Much of the literature on atypical work and more casualised forms of work shows that having access to less rigid or Procrustean models of work can avail workers at certain stages of their lives when they particularly want flexibility and are not able to take on rigid commitments week to week. I agree with the point the Senator made that it is difficult to conceive of a zero-hours contract promoting flexibility for the worker. However, I question the propriety of having an outright ban.

The other point that must be made is that zero-hours contracts as referred to in section 18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, for example, is a different concept from a zero-hours contract in the UK and the regulations I mentioned. If one wanted an outright ban, one would have to be clear as to what zero-hours contract is being referred to.

For example, in that legislation, there is a minimum payment commitment for hours not being provided. The first matter in consideration of any ban would be to clarify whether there is any degree of reciprocity or mutuality involved in the relationship. Even zero-hour contracts as envisaged by section 18 of the 1997 Act contain a minimum floor of security for the worker with regard to payment which zero-hour contracts in other jurisdictions do not have.