Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I was a member of the 32nd Dáil Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I was the only member of that committee coming into this Dáil. As a member of the current committee, I requested that the committee continue with this report. It was a difficult one because when one is not dealing directly with the witnesses such as ICTU and all of the other groups, one is working off records of printed material. I thank my fellow members of the committee for their work in drawing up the report.

I also thank those who made submissions, especially those from the trade union movement who have first-hand knowledge of the scale of bogus self-employment and its effects on workers' pay and conditions. I also thank Mr. Martin McMahon who came before the committee. I will deal with that point later in my contribution.

Bogus self-employment is a serious and growing phenomenon not just in Ireland but internationally. It is an issue that is taken very seriously by the European Trade Union Confederation. It is a particular problem in construction but applies across the board, impacting pilots in airlines, journalists, university staff, staff in meat plants and the staff in RTÉ. Deputy Carthy mentioned the case of RTÉ. That situation was peculiar. It was not the scope section of the Department of Social Protection that investigated cases of bogus employment in RTÉ; it was RTÉ itself. That was out of order. It should not be the case.

Bogus self-employment also features in other areas of the economy, and the casualisation and precariousness of employment are being used to drive down wages and conditions and to reduce union membership and organisation. That point must be strongly made. It is driving down union membership and organisation. I believe the 13 recommendations in this report, if implemented, can make a difference in reducing bogus self-employment, in assisting workers in obtaining their rights as workers, and in assisting trade unions to organise and represent workers on a collective basis. The key question here is that the recommendation of the code of practice for determining self-employment status is updated and placed on a statutory footing, as the Chair of the committee has said already. That must happen without delay. The Minister raised this point last June and we are still waiting for it to be put on a statutory footing. In welcoming this recommendation, Unite the Union stated that the process of putting the code of practice on a statutory footing "must of necessity encompass the important legal principles set out in court judgments, many of which seem to be ignored in individual Appeals Panel decisions".

Recommendations Nos. 2, 3 and 4 deal with the overlapping of three different agencies, namely, the scope section of the Department of Social Protection, which is seriously under-resourced, the Workplace Relations Commission, and the newly established employment status investigation unit. This overlapping can cause significant delays in determining a case or an appeal. It would be much better if workers had access to one point of contact in making an appeal on their status. A key question which needs resolution is the need for a standard definition of the term "employee". This should be done in the code of practice and applied to all legislation dealing with employment. I will return to the point I wished to make about Mr. McMahon. He does not support the recommendations put forward in this report and he does not think a code of practice is the proper way to go. He thinks it should be based on case law and not a code of practice. However, the other submissions we received were strongly supportive of a code of practice and that is why the committee is recommending it.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this report and its recommendations can make a difference, if implemented. I was very disappointed with the Minister's letter of last September responding to the publication of the draft report in June. The Minister in effect rejected every single recommendation in the report. As to putting the updated code of practice on a statutory footing, the Minister stated she was currently considering ways to do it, subject to the availability of a suitable legislative vehicle in a busy legislative programme. That in no way strikes me as a strong commitment or speaks of a sense of urgency around the issue.

The Minister also made particular points about recommendation No. 12 in the report. That recommendation states:

The Committee recommends that the period for employers to pay backdated PRSI contributions that they previously avoided is increased from six months to six years. That would mean that the Workplace Relations Act 2015be amended to allow adjudication officers and the Labour Court consider breaches of employment enactments for up to 6 years rather than the generally 6 months.

The Minister asked for clarification of that recommendation. Unite the Union argued that "the limitation periods applicable to breaches of employment law should be no less than those applicable to other areas of contract law which can have retrospection of up to six years". Unite made the point that employment law is different from contract law and that contract law allowed for six years. That would put major pressure on any employers that are trying to con the system through bogus self-employment. If such employers had to make a large payment, they would think twice about it.

It seems to me that neither the Minister nor leading officials in the Department regard bogus self-employment as a serious problem that needs urgent action and a change in approach. If that is the case, they are in denial. The Minister and the Department do not see bogus self-employment or the question of platform working as a serious issue. These are serious issues across Europe. I urge other Deputies to support the committee's report and to assist the committee members in maintaining pressure on the Government to ensure the implementation of the report. I noted the Minister's point about setting up a group to examine the question of bogus self-employment under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and I would like to have an input into that. I do not think this is the end of the matter. It is only a part of the process. I know that in the future, when we get more information about bogus self-employment and how it is operating, we will have to look in more detail at how to protect workers from these practices.

See this speech in context