Mr. John Barry:

I am involved on the ground with employers who deal with these types of contracts and have variable contracts. We all know this has come about because there is a problem of some employers, maybe, not treating employees fairly. It has been suggested employers are using this as a form of punishment for employees in different cases. This is not the original zero-hour contract. Unfortunately, I can remember the original zero-hour contract, and it came in for the same reason. In those days, a phone was stuck to a wall and an employee had to remain in a house until a phone call came through to say they could come into work. This is how the legislation came in. It is interesting that the Organisation of Working Time Act was introduced in 1997, and all parties - I was included - were invited in around 2000 to come and make presentations on how to improve the Organisation of Working Time Act. Unfortunately, although very valid comments were made, nothing ever happened. The Organisation of Working Time Act is the legislation which addresses working hours and to bring in a stand-alone, independent Act without taking account of the obligations of the Organisation of Working Time Act would be inconsistent.

Regarding the practicalities of it, leaving aside the seasonal issue, this has come about given that some employers may abuse the arrangement.

The majority of employers do not abuse it. They are fair and try to treat people fairly. Some employers may treat people unfairly by using these contracts. However, if this legislation is introduced, what will it actually do? It will actually give employers a benchmark against which to work. If banded contracts are in place, an unscrupulous employer will ensure an employee never works more hours exceeding the banded hours provision, so the employee can never look for increased hours. That employee will, in turn, lose out on the opportunity for additional hours. If there is somebody on maternity leave, as was suggested, and an unscrupulous employer felt that person could claim those hours after 42 weeks, that employer will ensure they do not get the opportunity of those hours. This, in turn, reduces their opportunity to gain more experience in the workplace, learn new jobs and develop themselves within an organisation. This is the negative side of this.

In reality, we are focusing on the people who abuse this, not the majority of good employers. They are being penalised because of the minority. I accept something needs to be done. Doing it this way, however, is not practical.

Another significant point about this legislation is that there is no mutuality of obligation. The employee is the only person who can benefit from it. What happens to the established standard terms and contracts of employment for short-time working, etc? Are they now overruled by this legislation? Once a person moves up to banded hours, how are they moved back down again? These are not addressed in this legislation and have been forgotten about. It will put an undue onus on the employer again when there is actually legislation dealing with this.

The issue of enforcement was raised. As was said earlier by a speaker who supports this legislation, the Workplace Relations Commission is good and fair at enforcing industrial relations provisions. For example, the Industrial Relations Act allows any employee to go to the Workplace Relations Commission if they believe they are being unfairly treated by an employer. The commission will bring an employer to account. If an employer is giving somebody a certain number of hours, the Labour Court or the commission will ask why the employee has not received a contract which reflects that. An employer will have to stand up and justify that.

This proposed legislation only regards a company’s financial circumstances. The fixed-term work Act and other legislation bring in objective criteria, which is more than just the financial condition of the company. There could be other reasons a company is keeping people's hours down or cannot give them certain hours. These need to be taken into account if we go down this road.

The issue of notification of hours is already dealt with in section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which states the employer must give notification of working time to an employee. It is reasonable that people will want to know what they are doing next week, so they can plan their own lives. People work fewer hours in order to do other things. We have moved on to atypical working. We are long since gone from the standard working practices. People now have multi-arrangements and multi-employments. For example in the cleaning industry, a person could work 12 hours in one particular contract and work for another company for another 12 hours. They need certainty and I understand that. However, what happens if a client says we no longer need that person or we want to reduce hours? How does the cleaning industry respond to that? This is very common. If this proposal sees hours increasing in the cleaning industry, we will see what happened when social welfare changes were introduced several years ago which brought 15 hours working down to 12.5 hours. Essentially, hours will be cut to avoid these obligations.

All that will happen with this legislation is that those who abuse this - I accept we need to find a way to address those people - will just find another way to abuse it. The trouble is that every good employer will have to do likewise. They are not going to employ people or give them extra hours if they think that, in six months time, they will have to guarantee those hours. Small industries are vulnerable because they do go up and down. People in them will work more or fewer hours. In my company, which only employs seven people, I have people who work three days a week. There will be times, however, when I will have to ask somebody if they could come in for an extra day. That might happen for six months to cover a contract. Under this legislation, that person can demand more hours but I might not have the work for them.

Many difficulties will arise from this legislation which aims to resolve what is essentially a small problem in the total workforce. I accept, however, for those it does affect, it is a big problem. The financial institutions have to learn that they have to approach these employees in a different way and give them credit. If someone can show from their P60 that they have consistently worked 15 to 20 hours a week for the past two years, the financial institutions must take that into account. A banded hours arrangement would effectively do no more than that, however.

My biggest concern about this legislation is that those employers who will find ways around the system will not give people extra hours. As a result, it will probably deny people the opportunity of getting more experience, more hours at work and developing themselves. That is my serious concern about taking this matter in isolation.

Instead, we should review the working time Act like as happened in 2000 and ask how we can address this issue. The facilities are there to address and enforce this matter.