Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That last sentence on whether a worker is not doing their full duties worried me a bit. If a worker is not carrying out their full duties, believe me, there are plenty of polices, procedures and everything else that can ensure they do. I do not see the need to put that into this legislation, to be frank.

The reason we are here discussing this is that despite having nearly two and a half years to deliver what he said he was going to deliver, the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, failed to do so. Now we have a situation where the Government is trying to circumvent its own failure by allowing the Tánaiste to effectively affix or annex his remote working legislation onto this legislation. The result is that complex legislation which should be delivered by way of a stand-alone Bill is being introduced by way of an amendment bypassing key legislative Stages in the Oireachtas. By introducing the legislation as an amendment on the Final Stage of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2022, the Government is bypassing three key Stage that a stand-alone Bill would have gone through in the Dáil, namely, Second, Committee and Report Stages. The Government and the Tánaiste are attempting to pull a fast one in relation to remote working. They are denying elected representatives an opportunity to query or raise concerns regarding these complex legislative changes around remote working. There are a number of questions regarding the recently published amendments which need to be answered and I will put them to the Minister now.

Section 18(2) states that a worker approved for remote working arrangements will not commence before a time when the employee concerned has completed six months work. I do not know where the six months came from. As I said to the Minister before, he should at least be trying to do as well, if not better, than the Tories over the water. We know they have said it is a no-brainer that employees can start work as remote working. Plenty of people start remote working from day one. This is the form of working; they start from day one and work remotely.

The following question arises in terms of the six months. Does it interfere with the ability of a worker and their employer to agree remote working, for example, in the event where they agree remote working? It is a growing thing that many people will start work as a remote worker and may never have an office-based job but where they do have an agreed remote working arrangement, if it is agreed before the six months has passed, are they entitled to the protections under this Act? Are they entitled to the protection of the WRC and the other machinery of the State and if so, how will that work?

In section 18(3)(c)(i) provides that a worker must state the reason they are seeking remote working arrangements and it is "referred to as the employees needs". This is massively disrespectful, that is, the idea that you would have to go in and talk about your own personal circumstances. I mean you have to be able to demonstrate that you can work remotely and that is fine. You have to do your work and, as I said to the Minister, there are plenty of policies and procedures there to ensure a worker turns up and does their work. There are also plenty of punishments, by the way, and the Minister does not need to add anything extra. I think this is a bit paternalistic.

Take Betty, for example, who has three kids and looks after her elderly mother. She can go to her boss and tell them she has three kids at home, an elderly ma and all of that kind of stuff going on. She could tell them that life is hard and, therefore, she would like to request some of this remote working. Then you could have Peter who may be a single man and who cannot demonstrate a need, or does not want to actually go in and discuss that aspect of his personal life with his boss. I genuinely fail to see why we are coming at it from this perspective. It is 20 odd years since the first time I had a negotiation with an employer on remote working, teleworking or e-working as we used to call it. That is a long time ago and at that time it was thought of as a bit of a treat or a grace in favour arrangement where you could have a bit of the flexible working and it was reserved for certain staff members. This should represent something new, different and better.

With regard to section 18(3)(c)(ii) and the need for a worker to provide "details of the proposed remote working location", I fail to see why this is there as well. As long as they are in the State, it really is not anybody's business as long as they are doing their work. Again, all of this is predicated on the worker being able to deliver the work they are contractually obliged to do. If they can do that, I do not see what business it is of the employer where it is that they are working.

Regarding section 20, I ask the Minister what constitutes a "substantial adverse effect" on the operations of a business. I ask this because subsection (d) states an employee's flexible working arrangement can be terminated for a substantial adverse effect which reads to me like it could be terminated for any reason.

On section 23(2), I ask what constitutes "reasonable grounds" for believing an employee is abusing remote working. I gave the example earlier of a person working at home or working remotely in a hub or wherever. If they are spotted by HR on a half day in SuperValu picking up some shopping, are they going to be subject to some kind of disciplinary procedures? If they are hitting all their key performance indicators, KPIs, and their targets and doing their work, what checks and balances are going to be put in place here? Section 25(5) provides for 20 weeks remuneration as compensation. This could be pushed out to 26 weeks to make it six months' pay.

On section 25(6), I ask why there are so many exclusions as to what an adjudication officer or Labour Court can consider in terms of the conduct and the decisions of the employer to reject or terminate an employee's flexible working arrangement. I say that in light of the discussions that were had. The reason the Tánaiste's appallingly anti-worker legislation had to be effectively binned was that there were multiple lists of reasons an employer could refuse.

See this speech in context