David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentations. I refer to head 14, relating to the requirement for employers to have a formal remote working policy. Do our guests agree that there are many employers, some of which are small employers employing a small number of people, whose workers will not be able to work remotely? Some of the employees may be working remotely in an unusual way. For example, is it reasonable to expect an employer with a plumbing business that carries out plumbing in households and employs two or three people to have a remote working policy? There are other employers who might have a shop with one or two people working in it. It is not possible for those people to serve customers remotely. Is it fair to ask people such as that to have a remote working policy in the first instance? Could consideration be given to some employers being exempted from having a remote working policy and having to go through the associated bureaucracy? Alternatively, it could be kept so simple that it would just be a matter of the employer stating that he or she does not have a remote working policy because none of his or her employees would be impacted by it. There are many employers with a small number of employees which could be impacted by this and if they did not have such a policy, it would be an offence. I ask our guests to tease out that issue.

Under head 8, employees are asked to carry out a self-assessment. That seems vague. Is there a proposal to have some kind of template for that self-assessment? Reference is made to proposed working locations and specific requirements for carrying out the job, such as data protection and confidentiality and so on. Some employees may not be able to do that. That may need to be tightened up.

Head 10(2) provides that an employer shall return a decision within a reasonable time and specifies a 12-week period. That is three months, which is an awfully long time. It may be that the period should be shortened to one month. That would be reasonable. I acknowledge that 12 weeks is the outside limit, but it is still an awfully long time.

Head 12, to which other members have referred, relates to grounds for an employer declining a request for remote working. One of the grounds is that an employer cannot reorganise work among existing staff. Much of the remote work we are discussing seems to me to be desktop type of work. Whether an employee is in the same room or building or a different location, it should be possible to reorganise work. There is reference to a potential negative impact on performance and quality. Both of those metrics are subjective and difficult to argue against. I am uncertain of the value of those provisions.

I understand the need for the provision relating to Internet connectivity, but what happens if that connectivity improves? If it is not working, it is not working. Of course, the connectivity should be tested.

I refer to the ground relating to concerns in respect of the commute between the proposed remote working location and the employer's on-site location. I suggest that should not make a difference unless it is some kind of blended arrangement whereby a person has to be in the office for one or two days and so on. Other than that, it should not matter.

I refer to the final ground, which provides that a ground on which an employer may rely is that the employee "is the subject of ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary process". That should be removed. Those circumstances should not be mixed up with a request for remote working.

Head 6 refers to the requirement for an employee to have 26 weeks' continuous service. I have spoken to several people who are currently working in this area. They tell me that it is an employee's market right now. The requirement for 26 weeks service seems to imply that the employee in question is a new employee. If an employee wants the right to work remotely, should that not be negotiated on entry, at the very beginning? People to whom I have spoken who are working remotely and newly employed make it a condition of accepting the job at interview that they have the right to work remotely. That is one of their conditions. Maybe that should be done at the start.

Those are my questions and comments. I thank our guests.