Mr. Ian Talbot:

I thank the committee for having us here today. Chambers Ireland is the largest business network in the State, representing 10,000 members in every geographic region and economic sector in Ireland. We are well positioned to understand the concerns of businesses from across the country. I am not going to read out our full submission but will try to point to some key aspects.

At the outset, I believe it is important to stress that chambers throughout the country are supportive of employment regulation that works for the benefit of both employers and employees. It is a truism that businesses need certainty. Businesses need to know their production cycle, when their liabilities fall due, when their orders need to completed and so on to operate efficiently. If a business is unable to provide with reasonable certainty a guaranteed number of hours of work for its employees in advance, it is very likely because the business model does not allow them to do so.

In our view, the Banded Hours Contract Bill as drafted is unbalanced and ignores the perspective of employers and the realities of business. The Bill unfairly assumes that employers are withholding higher-hour contracts from employees without good cause. This negative view of employers and businesses is clearly reflected in the unmanageable requirements this Bill seeks to impose upon all Irish businesses.

When considering the introduction of legislation, we must consider what the legislation is intended to address, whether it can actually achieve this intent and whether it is proportional. This Bill fails to achieve any of these criteria and stands to have negative effects for employers and employees if enacted. The publication of the University of Limerick’s 2015 report on the prevalence of zero-hour contracts and low-hour contracts in the Irish economy found that "Zero hours contracts within the meaning of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 ... are not extensive in Ireland". As such, any increased regulation or legislation to prevent the use of such contracts is disproportionate and unnecessary. This Bill seeks to implement disproportionate and onerous restrictions on sectors which by their nature require a degree of flexibility and seems to have general applicability regardless of the core structure of employment in an organisation. It applies to organisations to which hourly-base work has no relevance.

I will point out a few specific issues and some definitional aspects of, for example, how to define when a business is experiencing severe financial difficulties. It is an unmanageable requirement, which has the potential to undermine a business's ability to operate and grow. The requirement that a business must be experiencing severe financial difficulties to refuse such a request is an extremely unfair burden on a business and does not exempt cases where the business is facing, for example, seasonal downturns or requirements to invest in other areas or simply is at a fragile stage of development or growth. The Bill fails to provide any flexibility for employers in the managing of their businesses; there is no provision contained in the Bill that allows for employers to move employees back to a lower band where necessary, for example, when trading conditions deteriorate. Again, outside of a business cycle, the Bill ignores the requirements of businesses most typically engaged in this type of low-hour or flexible-hour employment contracts, such as seasonal or sharp demand-led businesses.

The Bill does not take into account the flexibility which often is of benefit to employees and employers. For example, an employer may alternate extra hours available between staff so that each of them receives a similar increase on top of their contracted hours. However, under this Bill, the first employee to request an increase might benefit disproportionately. Banded hours contracts within smaller businesses are more likely to have the effect of reducing the total number of employees rather than increasing the number of hours per employee. If there is an obligation or perceived obligation on a business to provide increased hours of paid work for an employee regardless of whether there is an actual business need for the additional hours, an employer may take the view that there is less exposure to risk of complaint by simply reducing headcount. Fewer jobs overall is not something that should result from any legislation in this area.

This Bill, while attempting to strengthen employee rights, is more likely to act as a deterrent for businesses when considering entering into employment contracts. From a business perspective, the requirements of the Bill are so burdensome and overly restrictive that it would incentivise the avoidance of contracted labour. We are all obliged to deal with the real world, both public representatives and the business community. In the real world, there is a risk that this legislation will push some employers to move to more informal working arrangements with employees. The risk of employment moving to the grey economy is not a good outcome for any party.

Section 5 of the Bill, which requires that businesses provide information of overall availability of working hours, mandates that such notices be displayed in English and Irish and in other languages where required. This represents another unfair burden on businesses and this provision can only result in potentially significant increased costs.

In conclusion, this legislation is disproportionate, will have significant unintended consequences and is unnecessary. It is deeply flawed in its approach to employer-employee relations and is more likely to incentivise the avoidance of employment contracts, for example, through outsourcing, or a reduction in jobs creation. It will also apply to a large number of companies to which hourly work has no relevance.