Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The UL study on zero-hour contracts and low-hour contracts recognises that the problem of low-hour contracts is only an issue in a number of sectors. Thus, it makes no sense to legislate in the manner set out in this Bill and apply a banded hours solution across all sectors, even in sectors where a problem does not exist. Most employers currently do not operate a banded hour structure. The Bill would impose new and unnecessary obligations on all employers. Moreover, the bands set out in the Bill are very narrow and provide little flexibility. It would have adverse impacts in terms of limiting an employer's ability to manage its business and its staffing needs in line with the needs of the business and its customers.

A key concern with the Bill is that it only allows an employer to refuse to grant additional hours if they are experiencing severe financial difficulties. If an employer refuses to grant additional hours, they will find themselves having to fund appearances before the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court in an effort to prove severe financial difficulties. The Bill makes no provision for a worker to be moved to a lower band where the level of business activity has fallen and the business can only sustain fewer working hours. The logical corollary of the Bill as drafted is than an employer will have no option but to grant additional requested hours to employees until its business is experiencing severe financial difficulties. By this time, irreparable damage may have been done to the business. Jobs may be lost and competitiveness adversely impacted as a result.

Much has been said in this House in recent times regarding Brexit. It is relevant in the context of this debate to refer to the concerns which employers have in this regard. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government, the Department and the enterprise agencies are fully committed to supporting business at this time of heightened uncertainty, it may be the case that employers are reluctant to give additional hours at this time for fear that they may lose contracts because of Brexit.

I will not reiterate all of the points made by the Minister in her speech this evening. However, I would mention again the difficulties with the six-month reference period for calculating average weekly working times, which will form the basis for a request to be moved into a higher band. This short period takes no account of business realities, and we need to talk about business realities, in particular, the normal peaks and troughs of a business, including the seasonal nature of many businesses. Consider workers in a seasonal tourist area, such as Tramore in Waterford in Deputy Cullinane's constituency, using March to September as their reference period for a request to be moved into a higher band just as demand falls. A similar six-month reference period in the UL study came in for particular criticism in many of the submissions received in response to public consultation on the study.

It is clear that the Bill will have significant cost implications for businesses, including SMEs and micro-enterprises. The Bill as drafted has many flaws and we do not have the time this evening to go into all of those flaws in any detail. However, suffice to say that the Bill if passed would have a significant adverse impact on jobs and competitiveness. That is the last thing we need at this juncture. The Bill could also have unintended consequences for those workers it seeks to protect. I do not believe that anyone in this House is interested in pursuing legislation that works against employees. Therefore, I welcome the proposal that the Bill would be subject to proper scrutiny by the Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I know Deputy Mary Butler will do a fine job as Chairman of that committee.

See this speech in context