Ms Patricia King:

The definitions of "worker" and "employee" are set down in legislation. If we call the State sector what we generally regard as being the public sector, shift patterns and various bands of hours are commonplace. They are also commonplace in airports, airlines and so on by virtue of the nature of the business where they include early morning and late night working. Shift roster patterns are a nightmare to manage in particular industries, but these industries agree that they would not survive if they did not have these patterns.

I would not regard the two issues raised as unintended consequences. A worker can only make a claim if he or she is working the hours. If someone's contract includes a period of 15 hours and it can be established that the pattern in the past six, 12, 18 or however many months has been that he or she is working between 20 and 25 hours, the legislation allows that pattern to be banded. As Mr. Douglas stated, this provides certainty of hours and income. However, if the employee is not working the hours in the first place, he or she cannot make the claim.

Currently, an employer decides for how long employees work and what income they will receives. He or she picks and chooses at will which of them will be offered the work, often at very short notice. This is an unbalanced relationship. The balance of power in the matter of hours and earnings lies entirely with the employer.

While I do not think this measure would solve all of the imbalance that exists, I suggest it would be an effort to address some of that imbalance.