Ms Lorraine Higgins:

Many thanks for the invitation to discuss the proposed Banded Hours Contract Bill. We in Retail Excellence welcome the decision to allow further scrutiny of the legislation, which, if enacted, will have far-reaching consequences for our industry and beyond. The retail industry is the heartbeat of the economy.

It represents 45,000 family-owned businesses and accounts for 282,000 employees, so today presents an opportunity for us to outline our misgivings on this proposed legislation, which would have a severe impact on those retailers.

At the outset I point out that we are not an organisation that sees itself in conflict with policies or legislation that are pro-employee. On the contrary, we are one of the few employer organisations that welcomed last year’s recent minimum wage increase. So, when we make arguments for and against legislation it is in a balanced manner, taking into consideration the essence of what we stand for, which is retail excellence, as without good employees we will never reach this ideal. We fully acknowledge there have been incidents of employment rights abuses but these are minimal and very much a peripheral exception rather than the industry norm. Therefore, we contend that a scramble to penalise everyone for the actions of a few is premature and that recent indicators point to the fact that more people are in a better position in terms of their hours of work and earnings. CSO figures indicate the number of casual and part-time workers continues to fall, as does the trend in the figures for part-time underemployment. Therefore, we do not agree with this attempt to stop what is often termed the "casualisation of work" as we feel it is a move that is out of sync with the aforementioned employment trends in the industry.

In light of the foregoing, it is imperative we strike a correct balance between the rights and needs of workers and that of employers. We must find solutions that make sense and that work in practice for all concerned and ultimately help retailers grow because when our members thrive, they in turn increase their employee capacity. We must desist from any actions that erodes the competitive nature of doing business. We have enough to do as a country to stave off the uncertainty and unpredictability of Brexit and President Trump, dual issues that are already impacting on consumer sentiment and general spend in retailers' outlets. Addressing employment issues should not mean changing the complete fundamentals of the relationship between employees and employer, which this Bill purports to do. It creates penalising burdens on Irish employers that could very well have the opposite effect of what is intended by Sinn Féin.

There are elements of this Bill that make little sense in a business environment. Section 3 provides the right for employees in a company to seek and be given more hours if they request to move to a higher band after six months of continuous employment. An employer may only refuse the request if the employer is experiencing severe financial difficulties. If it refuses, the employer may be brought to the Workplace Relations Commission and, on appeal, to the Labour Court, which will find in favour of the employee unless the employer can prove severe financial difficulties. This is a step too far and will destroy the largest employer in this State as section 3, in addition to this point will, in its entirety, will do three things. It will increase the cost of doing business in that the investment of time, resources and administration will deflect attention from the ordinary challenges of running a business in financially straitened times. It will create a situation wherein employees can continue to demand further increases in hours six months subsequent to the first time they have been awarded an increase in hours; band mobility is a rolling stone and this is a unilateral step too far. The section also compels business owners to disclose their sensitive financial information to their employees. This information should not be for an employee's consumption and instead of safeguarding an employee's position, it may very well have the completely opposite effect if such information made it into the public realm.

Under section 5, the requirement that notices in Irish, English and any other language be displayed showing the number of hours being allocated to workers in the next week or month and the relevant bands is again imposing a further cost imposition on business, investing time and efficiencies in further administration. Moreover, the six-month reference period is far too short and takes no consideration of seasonal work patterns or those working in some industries like health and education, or employees who cover for colleagues on a prolonged period of maternity leave, etc. The Bill unilaterally imposes an obligation on the employer to give more hours than he or she might not have a necessity for, which makes no sense in the circumstances. So, to counteract this, the logical act for employers to do if this Bill is enacted is to reduce hours and increase the numbers on low hours contracts. That is the very practice this Bill purports to stop.

We must be mindful that business by its very nature requires forward planning for contingencies. Now more than ever this practice has become pertinent in the face of Brexit. We have seen from December’s consumer sentiment index the increase in online shopping on.co.uk websites and that retail is already in decline and could very well enter into a recessionary space if the trends continue. So, many employers may be unwilling to grant additional working hours in the circumstances but may require the flexibility of employees in light of absenteeism, maternity leave and so on. Yet this Bill provides that unless they are in severe financial difficulties, they cannot refuse to give additional hours.

Many might say this Bill will act as a deterrent to employers but we would go further and say it is punitive and imposes intolerable burdens on employers. The inflexible nature of it and the administrative burden indicates that bad legislation is being created, which will make things inordinately difficult for small employers and will undoubtedly lead to jobs being lost and our competitiveness being damaged. It would be better to focus on those unscrupulous employers who created the issues rather than penalising the compliant majority because to enact this aspirational Bill would be to suggest that our recently reformed WRC mechanism is obsolete and ineffective, which is not the case. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this forum and thank members for listening.