Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“(1A) (a) An employer to which this section applies shall, within 6 months of the entry into force of this Act, negotiate an agreement with employees providing for tips or gratuities to be distributed in a fair manner.

(b) An agreement under subsection (a) can be reviewed upon the request of twenty percent of the relevant employees.”.

The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to compel employers to negotiate an agreement with their employees about the distribution of tips. This amendment applies to the section of the Bill which deals with a situation where tips are distributed between employees. This is the worker's money. It is not the employer's money. Therefore, the employees should have a decisive say in how the money is distributed between them. There should be a negotiation between the employer and the employees within six months of this Bill coming into force to agree how tips are going to be divided up. The amendment would also legislate for that to be reviewed at the request by one fifth of the relevant employees.

The other part is adding in the possibly of a review coming on the back of a workplace inspection as to whether a fair distribution of tips is taking place. We are removing the reference to the fact that whether the employee is on full-time or part-time contract of employment is something to be taken into account, given that section 4B(4)(c) includes the proportion or number of hours worked by the employee. It is entirely reasonable that would be taken into account in terms of how tips are divided. Once you are taking that into account, then there is no need to separately consider the point of full-time or part-time.

Third, in relation to what is currently in section 4B(4)(e), "the role and influence of the employee in providing service to customers", I do not understand what the meaning of “influence” is. I do not see why we need to have “influence” referenced here and therefore can delete it.

The next point is, again, to prioritise the question of an agreement, that where you can prove that you have an agreement that is not manifestly unfair, that takes priority.

I think the other amendments are Deputy O’Reilly’s.

See this speech in context