Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have listened attentively to Deputies Cullinane and Quinlivan. It is timely that the House is having this debate this evening. The programme for Government contains a commitment to tackle the problems caused by the increased casualisation of work and to strengthen regulation of precarious work hours. The University of Limerick study on zero-hour contracts and low-hour contracts highlighted the issue of workers on low-hour contracts who consistently worked more hours each week. When such workers needed a mortgage or a loan, their contract does not reflect their reality. The University of Limerick study made recommendations to deal with such situations. It also made a number of broader recommendations aimed at protecting vulnerable workers on low-hour contracts or what they termed if-and-when contracts.

I am committed to bringing forward legislation to protect workers on low-hour contracts as a follow up to the University of Limerick study. My Department received 48 responses to the public consultation and we will take these into account. I intend that the Government Bill will deal with situations where contracts do not reflect the reality of the hours worked. The Government Bill will bring forward proposals informed by the University of Limerick study and also the extensive material and practical examples provided by respondents to the consultations.

Proposals must be balanced and work in practice. Unfortunately, this Private Members' Bill is not balanced and will not work in practice. This Bill is fundamentally flawed and I believe that no-one from Sinn Féin has thought through its practical implications. The Bill does not focus on the issue of low paid vulnerable workers. Instead it requires that all workers in every sector of the economy be given additional hours on request unless the employer can prove they are in severe financial difficulties. Clearly, this Bill is motivated by a dispute between a single retailer and a union. I understand that the workers concerned work many more hours over extended periods than their contracts reflect. However, this Bill appears to completely miss the point of that dispute and the issue raised in the University of Limerick study. The problem arises where people are working more hours per week than their contract reflects. Their contracts do not reflect their reality, causing difficulties when they go looking for loans. I understand these difficulties. I empathise with workers in these situations and I am happy to bring forward legislative proposals to deal with these issues. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Breen, is working on these proposals.

Unfortunately, this Bill tries to legislate for the whole of the economy in order to address one dispute in a particular sector. That is simply wrong. Banded hours do not work across all sectors. This Bill requires employers to set up tight banded hours structures, whether it makes sense or not. It could work in certain retail outlets.

Some employers have agreed banded hours structures that work for them but why should multinationals or other employers that do not need banded hours have to change their perfectly satisfactory models? Does Sinn Féin’s head office give banded hours to its employees? The University of Limerick study recognises that the problem of low-hours contracts is an issue in a number of sectors and a smarter approach is needed.

There are elements of this Bill that simply make no sense. The Bill provides for a right for every employee in a company to seek and be given more hours through a request to move to a higher band. The request can be made after six months of continuous employment. An employer may only refuse the request if the employer is experiencing severe financial difficulties. This could be disastrous for employers. Under the Bill, it does not appear to matter if the employer does not have the work to give. Under this Bill, employees could keep asking for more hours every six months. They would have to receive the additional hours until the employer reaches the point of severe financial difficulties or eventually it would have to grant employees more than 24 hours work in a day. Does this make sense?

Consider employers who are afraid that they may lose business with Brexit on the horizon. They may be unwilling to grant additional working hours. This Bill provides that unless they are in severe financial difficulties, they cannot refuse to give additional hours. If employers refuse, they can be brought to the Workplace Relations Commission and, on appeal, to the Labour Court. These bodies will be required to find in favour of the employee unless the employer can prove severe financial difficulties. This Bill would destroy the largest employer in the State, the small business sector.

The Bill adds significant burdens. It requires every employer to display notices in the workplace. These notices will have to show the number of hours being allocated to workers in the next week or month and the relevant bands. These notices will have to be in English and Irish and in other languages as required. Imagine telling a Silicon Valley company that it has to display work rosters as Gaeilge in Ireland.

See this speech in context