John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The amendment that was made on Committee Stage goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve as we seek to protect some of the most vulnerable workers in our society. According to CSO figures that were published recently, some 105,051 people who are in employment are living in poverty. The amendment that the Minister is now seeking to reverse cuts to the heart of the matter by seeking to ensure additional work that becomes available is offered to people in precarious employment and people who depend on family income supplement on a weekly basis to be able to put meals on the table.

I think the Minister's proposal to have the amendment that was made on Committee Stage reversed has been introduced on foot of the intensive IBEC lobby which has been mentioned by a number of Deputies. If her proposal is accepted, it will affect vulnerable employees and drive down conditions and wages. Some employers are punishing staff who might be trying to hold their employers and their management to account. Employees in Dunnes Stores have been instrumental in the campaign to ban if-and-when contracts and zero-hour contracts, for example, by bringing the company to the WRC. We are aware that staff have been penalised there. By leaving this amendment in the Bill, we can prevent employers from penalising staff in this way. I will give an example of how staff are being penalised. Rather than offering any extra hours that are available to staff who have fought long and hard for their current pay and conditions, these employers are taking on new staff on lesser pay and conditions and giving them the additional hours first and foremost. The amendment that was made on Committee Stage will stop all of that.

I would like to refer to interesting correspondence regarding the WRC that has been provided by the Minister. The Department contacted the WRC time and again to ascertain whether it intended to comment on the amendment requiring employers "to offer any surplus hours to existing part-time employees first". As far as I can see from the correspondence, the WRC did not respond to those contacts. One official who had heard nothing further from the WRC wrote that they had been speaking to Mr. Foley, who is the chairperson of the Labour Court. This official reported that Mr. Foley had said that this provision would lead to a certain level of chaos at a practical level, but had also made the point that the Labour Court would have no difficulty in operating it. Of course there might be a little bit of initial chaos, as Mr. Foley put it, in the rolling out of this measure in employment up and down the State, but it is critical to note that the Labour Court would have absolutely no difficulty implementing it. The correspondence goes on to make it clear that Mr. Foley was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the Labour Court as a statutory body. The piece of correspondence in question conveys clearly that the views circulated and the observations provided are those of the chairman and not of the Labour Court as a statutory body. In summary, no concern has been expressed by the WRC, the Labour Court has not expressed any concern about this amendment and an individual from the Labour Court has said the court would have no difficulty in operating this provision.

As a result of an amendment that was made on Committee Stage, this Bill provides that "an employer shall be required to offer any surplus hours" that are available. The word that is used is "offer", rather than "give". There is no emphasis on giving anybody anything. Many employees who are trying their best to get additional hours are being precluded from doing so by the red tape and penalisation that exists. As Mandate has put it, the Government's attempt to scupper this provision by deleting it would pull the heart out of what we are trying to do to deal with precarious employment and if-and-when contracts. As I have said, the CSO has categorised 105,051 citizens as being in employment while living in poverty. I am totally opposed to the Government's attempt to delete the subsection that was added to this Bill on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister reflects on the views of Deputies, on the silence coming from the WRC and on the views of the chairperson of the Labour Court. Interestingly, the Labour Court as a statutory body did not have any views on it.

See this speech in context