Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 28 September 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection

Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection Remit and Legislative Agenda: Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection

10:00 am

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will stay away from certain areas. I have specific questions on banded-hours contracts and that whole area. The Minister referred to the Bill she and the Taoiseach want to fast-track. She will know that last year a Bill sponsored by Deputy David Cullinane was published which dealt specifically with banded-hour contracts. It received cross-party support and ended up in the jobs committee. In fairness to the committee, it undertook a huge amount of consultation work with the University of Limerick, trade unions, IBEC and ICTU and the matter was thoroughly scrutinised. The committee published a very comprehensive 50-page report with 21 recommendations arising from its hearings. Deputy Cullinane has agreed to accept all of the recommendations and I understand he intends to move his Bill again next week. As such, the consultation work has already been done. Why, therefore, is the Government bringing forward another Bill which will slow down the whole process?

The Minister will be aware of a Labour Court case involving Mandate and Dunnes Stores. It has agreed to suspend that case for six months pending the legislation Deputy Cullinane has brought forward. That Bill needs to be progressed as quickly as possible. Why is the Government introducing an alternative Bill, which will ultimately slow it down? The heads of the Government Bill have only been published; we have not seen the Bill.

I have a number of concerns over the heads of Bill. The Minister spoke about the need to address the concerns regarding casual workers. Head 10 of the Government Bill proposes to ban zero-hour contracts but makes an exception if the work is of a casual nature. That contradicts what she has said here about wanting to address the issues for casual workers. I ask the Minister to explain the provision in the heads.

Head 11 refers to an initial reference period of 18 months. Deputy Cullinane had initially proposed a six-month period and after consultation at the committee, it was extended to 12 months. It received cross-party support at the committee to move it to 12 months and the Minister is now proposing moving it to 18 months. That will give employers such as Dunnes Stores 18 months to do absolutely nothing other than muddy the waters for people in precarious employment, as well as in zero-hour and banded-hour contracts.

Head 8 proposes that an employee can seek redress from the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. I presume that is through the Labour Court within the WRC. That head would make it an offence for an employer to ignore the Labour Court's ruling. There has been much legal argument on that area. What is now regarded as an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013 means that what the Minister proposes under that head would be unconstitutional. The WRC is a voluntary body and does not have the remit to set legislation and set wages. The ruling from the WRC is not legally binding. The Minister is now proposing to make it an offence for an employer to ignore the Labour Court's ruling. Essentially it would be unconstitutional. What the Minister is proposing in the Bill is crazy.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.