Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am very supportive of this Bill. I thank Mr. Mulligan for his opening statement, in which he referred to his intention to look at a reduction in the number of grounds for refusal and to strengthen the redress provisions and the right to appeal. I will focus in the time available to me on heads 6 and 12.

This legislation to allow for the right to request remote working is part of an overall strategy to give people better access to employment and more job opportunities, especially in locations where there are not the same opportunities as there are elsewhere. We want people to be able to work where they want to work. It is about embracing locationless work. For me, the fundamental aspect of the legislation is around unlocking that potential, which is why the qualification period of 26 weeks is problematic. If somebody wants to work fully remotely in Kerry or Donegal, for instance, they will have work in the office, wherever that may be, for 26 weeks in order to prove themselves and be able subsequently to work remotely. We have tried to show through the example of Grow Remote and Glofox that, in fact, people can on-board remotely. Location is still embedded in parts of the legislation. The 26-week requirement is problematic if we are supposed to be delivering more jobs in different parts of the country.

There was reference to parental leave. The right to that leave is not a right to request. If a person asks for parental leave, the employer may postpone it for six months but, on the spectrum of rights, it is very much a right to have rather a right to request. These proposals for remote working, however, will only give a right to request. Internationally, we are moving towards day one. The witnesses specifically referenced the UK but other countries are moving in the same direction.

I want to ask about resources. This Bill offers a floor of rights but, as I said, it is a part of a transformation under which the ambition is to facilitate jobs in parts of the country where there is less access to employment opportunities. It is part of a digital transformation. What resources will be put in place to back this up? Companies need to be future-proofed.

In regard to the grounds for refusal, as set out under head 12, the approach being taken in other countries is that the presumption is "why not?" when it comes to an employer approving remote working, rather than focusing on the employee having to give reasons it should be allowed. The provision in this legislation is open-ended, with the employer, having given the application due consideration, being able to decline a request for remote working on reasonable business grounds, which may include, but are not limited to, a list of specified reasons. Within that list, the language is quite soft, with reference to potential negative impacts and concerns. In New Zealand, to give an example, the provision is that an employer may refuse a request only if that employer determines it cannot be accommodated on one or more grounds, as specified in the legislation. It is the same with the UK legislation, which sets out the specific business grounds for refusal. The legislative provisions in those jurisdictions are much tighter than what is proposed in this Bill, both in terms of the language used and the specified reasons for refusal. The grounds for refusal should be reasonable and demonstratable. There is a policy aspect to this and if there is a link there that makes it easier to set out what is reasonable and demonstratable, then I will take the witnesses' views on that.

There are some provisions in the Bill that, in my view, should not be included. Refusal is permitted where the employer cannot reorganise the work among existing staff. However, the remote worker is just as much a team member as is any other employee. An inordinate distance between the proposed remote location and on-site location is given as another reason for refusal. Again, we are locking in location when this is supposed to be about opening up the possibility of locationless work. Refusal is also permitted where there are ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary processes involving the requesting employee. There is a problem here in that an employee having a difficulty in getting to the office may be part of the reason that he or she is under a disciplinary process.