Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is extremely important that the amendment of the Minister be rejected. It certainly has IBEC written all over it. IBEC stated it is deeply concerned about the implications of the proposed banded hours legislation. It states:

A further proposed amendment was a suggestion that an employer be obliged to offer any additional available working hours to existing staff before recruiting new employees. This provision, if it were to be accepted, operating in tandem with the amendment placing the onus of proof on the employer that any changes in working hours were not in fact a form of penalisation under the proposed legislation removes any meaningful control that an employer once had to manage his or her business and staff and places that control in the hands of the State. Put simply, this is State micromanagement of contracts of employment.

Our committee recently produced a report on lone parents, the precarious work done by lone parents and the deprivation they experience. The measure is specifically to deal with the issue of lone parents getting extra hours.

The one-parent family scheme age threshold was reduced to seven years. The rationale was that it would be an incentive for lone parents to seek more hours at work but they cannot get them. They are not getting more hours at work. Thirty percent of Tesco and Dunnes Stores workers want more hours. Why are they not getting them if it was provided for in legislation? They are not being offered the extra hours by the employers.

Mandate has won a 3% increase in pay for its members every year for the past five years. That is 15% over the past five years. Its long-term members get about €14 per hour. Where one of those members who is working in Dunnes Stores for 35 hours per week decides to leave, the company prefers to employ someone who can be paid €9.55 per hour rather than giving the hours to a person who has been working in that environment for €14 per hour. My proposal is about offering the hours to part-time workers who are working generally according to the same scheme.

I worked as a post office clerk. Seniority was a factor. I refer to where someone left the job or moved to a different section. Every six months or so, a list of vacancies would be put up for competition and people would apply. Eligibility would be based on one's seniority in the job. It was very simple to operate. There is nothing chaotic about doing that in any retail store. The employer knows one's seniority and the number of hours one works. It would be very simple to publish vacancies every couple of months offering the extra hours. If a worker working ten hours decided to do 25 or 35 hours at a rate of €14 per hour, which is the rate the union fought for, the ten hours could be offered to somebody else who might be working for 15 but who might prefer to work for ten because it would suit their lifestyle better. Part-time workers in employment should be offered the hours.

Rather than trying to delete the section, it would have been much more appropriate for the Minister to consider an amendment to clarify the necessary skills or qualifications, if necessary. I do not believe it is necessary but I am referring to where the Minister believes so. It is very disingenuous just deleting the actual section because the Minister is abandoning those women, lone parents and workers who want to access the extra hours, who need them and who experience a constant barrage from management if they lift their heads above the water. We saw that two and a half years ago when the Dunnes Stores workers went on strike. We saw it with Tesco workers and we see it in other areas. LloydsPharmacy workers are on zero-hour contracts and do not even have contracted hours.

I urge everybody to reject the Minister's amendment and, if necessary, work with us. I will try to have an amendment introduced in the Seanad to strengthen the legislation a little if the Minister believes it is necessary. We certainly should not vote for the Minister's amendment. As I said, a healthy employer is fine but the legislation is to protect those workers who are not in a healthy environment. Many retail companies and others are not healthy employers in any shape or form. I will leave it at that and I might contribute again. I have a few more points.

See this speech in context