David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a general point in response to Teachta Maurice Quinlivan. I recognise the contributions made by the employers' organisations. I know that I made some strong criticisms in my opening remarks. With other members, I attended a briefing given by some of the employers' organisations on the heads of a Government Bill. Similar arguments were made against that Bill that I believe were disingenuous, facetious and an attempt not to recognise that there was a problem. It was Seanadóir James Reilly who made the point in asking what was wrong with somebody having a contract that reflected the hours they worked. It is a simple and basic right to which any employee should be entitled. There now seems to be political support for it which was not the case in the past. I welcome that advance. The employers' organisations are, however, not in a space where they are even able to accept that it is a right workers should have, regardless of whether it is a Sinn Féin or a Government Bill that progresses. We believe our Bill should progress because it has the ability to deal with the issue. Teachta Maurice Quinlivan asked if we were willing to work with others and accept amendments. We have demonstrated a willingness to do so.

The logic and the policy, that a worker should have a contract reflective of the hours he or she works, should be provided for in law. At a previous hearing we heard examples from workers. Mandate carried out a survey of workers on if-and-when contracts and the logistical and obvious problems they were causing for them. The findings of the survey were presented to the committee. We know that such contracts have an impact on workers in being able to plan their week and not being able to take out mortgages because it is their contract that is looked at, not the hours they actually work. There can be exploitation and workers can be penalised if they ask for a contract that is reflective of the hours they actually work.

One of the issues raised by the legal people was that we should look at the penalties in place if any worker is victimised. If we provide for banded hours, regardless of how many bands there will be and whatever the length of time, we must ensure employees will not be victimised. That is not provided for in the Bill, but we will amend it to reflect that position also. It was a welcome addition by the legal people who appeared before the committee.

I have dealt with the six-month time period which I still believe is appropriate. Obviously, we are willing to compromise and suggested a figure of nine months if others felt ta longer time period would better reflect seasonal hours. Others have argued for a timeframe of 12 months and some have suggested a figure of 18 months. It is a matter for the committee to sort out.

On displaying rosters in a language or a way that is understood by a worker, when one thinks about it, they are just numbers and days. How onerous is it to ask an employer, especially of a large number of staff who might be from the same country, to have a roster that covers seven days? To be frank, some of the issues raised were a little disingenuous and red herrings. They were an attempt to take away from the substance of the Bill. Again, they are issues that have been raised by trade unions. It is a simple right that workers should know they hours they will work in any given week. People have to organise their lives, make child care arrangements and deal with different issues. The majority of those on if-and-when contracts are women and in low-paid jobs. They deserve certainty. It is not unreasonable for a worker to know in advance the hours he or she will have to work the following week and have them displayed. That is a reasonable request. It is one of the reasons we were insistent on that element of the Bill remaining in place.