Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

That was an incredible speech from the Minister. I have a quote from her here: "Unfortunately, this Bill tries to legislate for the whole of the economy in order to address one dispute in a particular sector". If the Minister thinks that the type of precarious work that this Bill seeks to address applies to just Dunnes Stores or the retail trade she is seriously out of touch with what is going on in hundreds and thousands of workplaces across this country. I also note the Minister's use of Brexit as an argument to justify denial and delay of workers' rights. In this regard, I believe Fine Gael is acting as a mouthpiece for the employers.

The AAA Deputies will support the progress of the Bill and will engage with amendments on Committee if it gets there. The issue for us is making it as effective a remedy as possible to combat precarity in the workplace in general, but particularly to weaken the power of employers and management to use the uncertainty and insecurity of hours as a control mechanism. If the Bill was implemented in its current form, some headway would be made, but we also have to anticipate how employers and management will inevitably try to work around it to maintain the status quo. Specifically, the Bill provides for a mechanism for somebody who works six consecutive months on hours greater than the hours they were originally contracted for to apply to have those increased hours made permanent, thus positively amending their contract.

In the context of small to medium-sized employers, or of a workplace where the employees who stand to benefit have special skill sets, this legislation as currently framed could be of real assistance. However, we know from representations from Mandate and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that a motivator behind this legislation is the conduct of large retail chains such as Dunnes Stores. How this proposed legislation could be subverted by employers such as Dunnes is what should preoccupy us on Committee. For example, in the context of a large unskilled or semi-skilled workforce with a tradition of turnover, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the likes of Dunnes Stores could engineer that staff never work six consecutive months on hours greater than what is in their contract. There could be a constant churn of staff being put on reduced hours on the eve of the sixth months and those additional hours that they worked in the previous five and a bit months being given to newer members of staff. Amendments to the effect that seniority or length of service count for the allocation of hours and that new hires cannot become a mechanism to undermine the spirit of the Bill will need to be considered.

The framing of the Bill in section 3 is such that it entertains only individual applications for increased banded hours. The exercising of any worker's rights is done best when it is done collectively. I suggest that section be appropriately reworded to allow for collective applications where groups of workers simultaneous achieve the threshold where they can apply for an approved work band.

Some further elaboration in the Bill needs to be considered on Committee on the issue of penalties for recalcitrant employers. My understanding of the Bill as it is currently drafted is that the maximum favourable ruling a worker could get at the WRC is an order to the employer to increase the band. However, the issue of compensation for lost pay if a worker suffered a loss of hours subsequent to working the six consecutive months should also be considered.

In conclusion, we will not support Fianna Fáil's amendment, which in our view seeks to walk a tightrope between the rights of workers and employers at a time when it is necessary to make a bold stand in support of workers' rights. The amendment would also serve to delay action on workers' rights at a time when workers in precarious employment have already waited far too long for some measure of justice.

See this speech in context