Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand and appreciate the intentions behind the amendments. However, I cannot accept them for two reasons. The requirement that the consent of all employees would be required for a change in policy is too onerous. We are not talking about a majority here; we are talking about unanimity. I just do not think that is a practical provision when it comes to amendments Nos. 6, 13 and 16, to have a situation whereby the employer and the vast majority of employees want a certain policy and a blocking minority or even one individual could block a change to that policy. I am sure that was not what was intended by the amendment. However, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel said that would be the effect.

Again, we need to bear in mind that sometimes the employer is a worker too. You will often see in a small restaurant or small café, the person who is the employer – the owner – is very busy on the shop floor, taking orders, delivering meals and behind the till. The employer can be a worker as well. Under amendment No. 15, you would see employees getting financial information about the employer or another worker, and that is private information. I would have real concerns about that being done. If it is the case, for example, that the worker-owner, if you like, is taking half or even a quarter of the tips, that would be known because there has to be a tips and gratuities policy, and it would have to be made clear in that policy that a certain worker or someone who was somehow getting a disproportionate share of the tips. I think if I saw that policy, I would be very suspicious. Therefore, I think it is covered in that regard.

See this speech in context