Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for attending this hearing today. This was described as landmark legislation. The question has to be asked, how can it be described as landmark legislation when there is no balance between the employee and the employer?

I refer to employees having to wait for 26 weeks before they can even ask to work remotely. They then have an inordinate wait of 12 weeks before they can get an answer. The grounds for refusal are so wide as to make the right to request meaningless. Equally, there is no proper right to appeal the grounds for refusal. How can the Department reconcile the ambition that was set out in the strategy on remote working, wherein the Tánaiste referred to more opportunities being available for those with disabilities, caring responsibilities and those living in rural Ireland, with the rigid, conservative and very much right-to-request-focused proposed legislation we have here?

Turning to specific questions, head 6 deals with employees having to wait 26 weeks when they start before they can even ask to work remotely. I know of no other workplace right that kicks in at 26 weeks. The way it is drafted here means that it amounts to a perk for good behaviour as opposed to something we must be embedding into the future of work. I would therefore like to hear a little bit more about how the 26-week period was decided.

Turning to head 12(3)(j) regarding concerns about commuting, why should the length and-or distance of the commute matter? Inserting that provision ignores the decisions others here have highlighted. I refer to decisions people have made during the pandemic to relocate because of the costs of rent and buying property in some of the main urban areas. We are also on dangerous ground because we are asking employers to decide on the appropriateness of a commute. Could we then end up in a situation where it might be considered okay for a single person to be commuting for two hours but not okay for a working parent or somebody with other responsibilities to be doing so? We are getting into a space here where we are allowing employers to make decisions about the type of commute and, effectively, differentiating between workers, which is a very dangerous context. Provision is made in these heads concerning the location of where a person works. This issue is therefore already covered, and inserting this proposed provision regarding the length of commute is alarming. I look forward to the responses.