Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I cannot accept what the Deputies are saying. This is an exemption for a situation where an employer offers temporary work but for the period the person is not working a retainer payment will be made. This is a reasonable employment arrangement into which people can enter. The Deputies want to outlaw such an arrangement. I accept such an arrangement could be flexible and would justify paying less than the basic pay rate which would be applied to someone who commits to working a full working week. This is the flexibility being allowed in the directive. It is not a pattern that is much established here but it is not one that is abusive in its concept. It could be a reasonable arrangement to enter into.

Deputy Boyd Barrett seeks to portray a case where this would be entirely exploitative. The truth is we are putting in place provisions whereby the agency must notify the agency worker in writing that if the agency worker enters into such a contract of employment, the provisions of section 7(1) will not apply. The agency is also under obligation to make this a permanent contract of employment. If it is abused, there will be a right of redress for the employee. If it is used by an agency as a way of filling a short-term gap in a way that does not meet its obligations, it can be challenged before a rights commissioner in the normal way.

The provision will allow certain flexibility for this arrangement. It is fair that we leave it in the legislation. It is a reasonable arrangement for people on both sides to enter into knowingly if it suits them, but it is not the case that people will be compelled to enter into such an arrangement. An agency must notify people in writing and an agency worker must knowingly enter into it. It provides a balance of protection on the two sides that we seek to have in the arrangement.

See this speech in context