Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 10, lines 37 to 40, to delete subsection (1), and substitute the following new subsection:

"(1) Where an employee has completed one year of continuous employment with his or her employer or associate employer

(a) his or her fixed term contract may be renewed on only one occasion and

(b) where the combined period of the fixed term contracts exceeds 4 years, the contract shall be regarded as being a contract of indefinite duration."

It has been referred to twice already that under the directive a consultation process took place between the social partners and the Department which was most effective. The view, certainly from the congress side, and as far as I know from the IBEC side as well, is that it was a most satisfactory process. Where problems have arisen it is because this has not been reflected in the Bill. No doubt those helpful people in the Department of Finance did their usual thing when they got it. The Minister of State may not be willing to admit that but those of us who know the ways of these people understand it. This scuttles what we are trying to do. During that process of consultation a consensus was reached.

I am not trying to embarrass the Department but there was a view held by it and the social partners that following one year's continuous service on a fixed-term contract, a renewal contract would be deemed to be a contract of indefinite duration. It was also agreed that the total period of that kind of increase would be time-limited. It had to stop and we had to agree on some particular time. It was also agreed that after the one-year period a rights commissioner could hear a claim as to the appropriateness of the status of the contract. In other words, could another fixed-term contract be justified or should it be one of indefinite duration? I suspect that this touches on the point raised by Senator McDowell.