Ms Marguerite Bolger:

The problem the Bill is trying to resolve is that a person is working hours which are not recognised in the contract. One of the practical effects arises when the person applies for a mortgage. The problem is not one of being actively abused in the workplace and the Bill has not provided for penalisation. If the Bill provides for penalisation, a person is at least protected by giving him or her the ability to challenge what is happening but without being penalised in the interim even if it turns out he or she had no right to increased hours. For example, under equality legislation once a person asserts rights to equality even if it is found the person has not been the victim of discrimination the person is still protected from penalisation. That is a very real protection for an employee seeking to assert his or her rights.

Objective justification in practice works in the same way as seeking a contract for indefinite duration or asserting that something is indirectly discriminatory and the employer pushes back by saying he or she is allowed to do that because it is objectively justifiable. It is then a matter for the employee to either accept what the employer says or to bring the claim before the workplace adjudication officer. The person would have to wait three or four months which is a problem of enforcement. Introducing penalisation is a practical and important protection to say the person cannot be punished for asserting his or her rights whether he or she is correct or not in saying that those rights have not been properly honoured.