Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 15, to delete lines 11 and 12.

On Committee Stage, Deputy Joan Collins, who proposed the amendment along with Deputy Clare Daly, stated that it was based on EU Directive 97/81/EC on part-time work, which this country had not implemented yet. The Deputies were mistaken in this regard because Ireland has fully transposed the directive. That was confirmed by a 2003 report on the implementation of the directive undertaken by the European Commission. The Attorney General's office has confirmed same and that the amendment is unnecessary for this reason.

Under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001, an employer cannot treat a part-time employee less favourably than a full-time employee. The statutory code of practice states that an employer should give consideration to a request by workers to transfer from full-time work to part-time work or vice versa. The code was developed by the former Labour Relations Commission following consultation with the social partners. The code is admissible in evidence in any and all relevant legal proceedings. The code sets out the best practice and detailed arrangements that should apply to a request by employees to transfer from part-time to full-time work or to increase their working time should the opportunity arise as well as a request to transfer from full-time to part-time work. The code also provides guidance to employers about career opportunities for part-time workers and the provision of information by employers to employees and employee representative bodies or union representatives about the availability of part-time and full-time positions. We believe that is the appropriate way to deal with these issues.

It is important to remember that there are costs involved in hiring an employee. Most employers are rational and, therefore, will offer the extra hours to people who they know can do the job, in particular, existing employees. The code of practice in the 2001 Act already provides sufficient protections for part-time employees in this regard.

The Committee Stage amendment tabled by the Deputies imposes obligations on employers that are too prescriptive. The general manager of a cleaning company – she happens to be a lady in Meath – wrote to me to say that the provision will not allow her to assign hours according to ability and experience. She said that the provision, if enacted, represents micro-management of her employment contracts by Government and she finds it wholly unacceptable.

I will set out a practical example. Let us suppose an employer with a franchise supermarket has, say, 50 employees, made up of 15 full-time and 35 part-time employees. A member of staff who works ten hours per week cannot work a particular week because of college examinations. Those ten hours would be deemed to be surplus hours. Clearly it would make no sense for the employer to hire a new employee to do those ten hours. The employer will offer the hours to existing staff. However, to require the employer to do so by statute is unnecessary. It also creates the risk of unintended consequence since employees not offered the hours could, and potentially will, seek redress if they do not receive any of the surplus hours.

If we create a new right in law we must set out in statute how that right is to be exercised and how the employer can defend himself or herself against a claim. If the employer offers these hours to a new Irish national employee first, is the employer leaving himself or herself open to a race discrimination claim from non-Irish employees or vice versa?

I am satisfied that the amendment, as carried by the committee, would cause operational issues and difficulties for the employment rights bodies adjudicating on this issue. As it stands, the provision allows no room for flexibility. What if specific skills are required? That is not specified in the amendment. For example, a hospital porter should not, and would be unable to, take over from a nurse without the required qualifications. Yet, under the provision, as currently drafted, an employer of that hospital porter would be obliged to offer the nursing vacancy to the hospital porter.

The amendment from Deputy Collins and Deputy Daly assumes that all part-time workers want increased hours but actually there are many people who do not. According to the latest CSO labour force survey, some 75% of part-time employees describe themselves as unwilling and unavailable to work additional hours. Working more hours could potentially affect many people's social welfare entitlements. Specifically, one important condition of the jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit being paid to current part-time workers is that recipients are obliged to continue to look for full-time work. If an employer offers a part-time worker increased hours – the employer would be obliged to do so by this law if passed – and the worker refused to take the hours, we would have to give serious consideration to bringing forward provisions to provide that the employer must notify the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection of such a situation.

A similar situation arose in Belgium whereby a comparable provision was transposed into law. In that case an employer who offers additional hours of work to the employee who is in receipt of social welfare must notify the social welfare authorities if the employee refuses to work those extra hours. That creates a whole conundrum of issues involving people who are working part-time and who potentially do not want to work more hours. I genuinely know this is not what the Deputies were trying to do.

For all the foregoing reasons I have moved the amendment.

See this speech in context