Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to ask questions. I very much welcome this legislation and the remote work strategy that was launched last year. We can consider this in respect of supply and demand. We certainly have the demand for remote working and can see how the Government is investing to create an environment that allows people to work in their communities. It is investing in hubs and broadband and by way of the Town Centre First initiative that was launched. We also have to make sure there is a supply of remote jobs and that employers are facilitating remote working in order for us to deliver on the vision.

I have three questions. They concern change, the grounds and language of the grounds, and appeals. I read the consultation paper. Have the delegates engaged with remote-only companies that have been operational in Ireland for longer than Covid, such as Glofox, Flipdish, Shopify and Flexco, which has over 1,000 employees? I refer to companies that are leading in this area. My concern is that the consultation and submissions might be skewed in favour of employers that have concerns and see barriers instead of opportunities. Is there an opportunity to bring in those companies that are leading in this area to talk about how they deal with health and safety, data protection, monitoring, well-being and onboarding? They are dealing with this matter already. It could be good for the committee to hear from them. If a consultation is being conducted, we should be leading the employers instead of having the employers lead us.

I also want to ask about the resources that are being made available. We support SMEs with productivity and digital transformation. This is a matter of digital transformation; it is about creating offices that are digital first. We are focusing on people and the issues people might have regarding lost opportunities in the workplace, but we need to realise that it is the roles that are remote and that it is up to the company to embrace the culture of remote working rather than become too fixated on the idea of the legislation allowing people to work from home instead of allowing companies to become digital first and embrace change.

I wish to talk about Dropbox. It is an organisation that bought a big office in Dublin a few years ago. It spent a lot of money on it but it has changed how it does things by creating regional hubs. Staff can work from the office if they want to or they can work from a hub. The company has moved from the idea of presenteeism in the office to different ways of operating. We need to hear from such companies. We need to hear from Grow Remote, which is training managers in this area. It is a matter of assisting companies and having an alliance of employers that are trying to lead in terms of best practice in hybrid working.

On the grounds and the language of the grounds, I note that the Long Title refers to “reasonable grounds". That is important. Therefore, the ambition is such that employers must provide reasonable grounds to decline a request. That could be reflected in head 12. In the flexible working arrangements in other countries, the language is very important. We should compare our language, which refers to the potential negative impact on the quality of the business, product or service, with the language pertaining to other flexible working arrangements, which might refer to a detrimental impact. While we have concerns about certain business issues, it is a matter of whether we can make our aspirations concrete. What I said about the learnings around health and safety, data protection, and monitoring would also feed into the grounds. Therefore, the language concerning reasonableness is very important. Should the word "demonstrable" not also be included?