Mr. Paul Bell:

I want to touch on the issues that community health workers face. I thank the committee members most sincerely, on behalf of health workers engaged on precarious and zero hour contracts working in community health, for the opportunity to make this brief submission to the joint Oireachtas committee today. I would ask that they note that SIPTU health division fully concurs with and supports the submission presented by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions General Secretary Ms Patricia King here this evening. In the course of this brief submission, which centres on community health support workers, I will refer to the Government-approved study on this subject. This study was conducted by the University of Limerick. I will also rely on my direct experience in advocating for and supporting vulnerable health workers exploited through the practice of zero hours contracts, which are repugnant to the principles of a fair and just workplace.

The State’s main employer in the health sector is the Health Service Executive. Until 2013 the HSE practised zero hour contracts. This practice was ended by SIPTU’s successful campaign which resulted in a binding Labour Court recommendation CD/12/527 issued on 16 September 2013. This Labour Court recommendation compelled the HSE to ensure that each community and home help employee, directly employed by the HSE, would have a minimum of hours which the worker could not fall below and that should the hours not be available the employee would receive payment and the hours would be banked for future use in the service. While we see this outcome as an advance in the right direction, the progress made was limited to workers who are organised within the trade union family and who, just as important, successfully communicated to both the public and public representatives the injustice they were suffering. Ongoing efforts to secure the same outcome in HSE-funded section 39 employments have thus far been actively resisted and frustrated by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform which has committed to resolve the issue of zero hour contracts and employees' rights to access to the State’s grievance and dispute resolution machinery. This agreement is an integral element of the Lansdowne Road agreement, and as of today has not been implemented by the HSE. It is SIPTU’s experience that health workers exposed to precarious or zero hour contracts are predominantly female; are low paid or on minimum wage; are mainly working in isolated settings such as home care; have basic education or are early school leavers; are in a higher age bracket, from 35 to 49 years and 50 to 65 years; have received very limited or zero employer-sponsored education; are likely to be non-Irish employees, with rates of 12% excluding nursing homes, which according to the last employer census stands at 51% non-Irish; are exposed to part-time work; work in community settings; are likely to be lone parents as they are more prevalent in the heath care sector than any other sector of the care industry; are highly flexible; are highly vulnerable to private sector tendering process; have limited or no opportunity to personal development education; are working in an unregulated industry; are unregistered workers; and may require State pay support through the Department of Social Protection to mitigate against the poverty trap.

Government policy in addressing the changing demographics of our nation has shifted over the past two decades to caring for elderly and disabled citizens in their home and community. SIPTU supports this policy in recognition that, unless absolutely necessary, citizens requiring care should in the first instance be cared for in their home or community, whether it be a rural or urban setting. However, SIPTU is determined that health care provided in the service user's home or community must be equal to that of care offered in an institutional setting. We also are determined that it must also be regulated by HIQA to ensure that this desired benchmark is upheld and advanced in the interest of the service user and those workers charged with delivering care in what can be described as an isolated challenging setting. With the exception of agreements reached with the HSE to offer a floor of rights which includes basic hours, significant numbers of section 39 employers - HSE funded - have removed themselves from any forum which attempts to even the playing field for vulnerable employees. The private sector, also in receipt of huge funds from the Exchequer via HSE service level agreements, have also in the main behaved in a similar fashion. SIPTU is determined to ensure that taxpayers' money spent on community care is not based on a casualised, vulnerable and undervalued workforce.

Community care and home care must issue a contract of employment reflecting in the first instance a minimum floor of hours with the optional right to work additional hours when available reflecting the flexibility required in this sector.

Government policy must ensure that the industry is regulated and that care workers are registered.

In order for the highest standards of care to be provided in the home and community settings, the Government must support and resource FETAC training and education for these workers. Such a policy would also allow for these workers to advance their skills and create opportunities for them to work in other areas of health care.

The Government and its agencies contracting services to section 39 and private sector providers must, through their service level agreements, stipulate the requirement that zero hour contracts cannot be applied and that a worker's right to have his or her grievance or dispute addressed by, for example, the Workplace Relations Commission or the Labour Court, must be be a right which cannot be obstructed or frustrated.

These points, if applied, will prevent the home care community care setting from being casualised and will ensure that workers and the vulnerable clients they care for are protected by the highest standards. SIPTU is opposed to taxpayers' money being issued to employers who believe that is some way they are remote from employment and justice in the workplace. SIPTU also believes that the taxpayer expects vulnerable workers to be treated fairly and have their rights upheld in the workplace.

Chairman:I will start with a few questions. Previous speakers before the committee have had numerous concerns around the drafting of the Bill, highlighting in particular that there may be some constitutional issues placing a disproportionate burden on employers. We are trying to get a balanced approach here, so the witnesses might address that. We have heard a lot of evidence over the last few months.

The question of unintended consequences was raised, and in fairness to the drafter of the Bill that was never the intention. Quite a few different organisations have flagged that there may be unintended consequences.

Does SIPTU currently have any agreement with employers using a banded hour system?