Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I will discuss amendment No. 36 as the point has been made about amendments Nos. 33 and 34. Amendment No. 36 proposes that the term "an agreement" be deleted from section 9 and replaced with the word "agreements", while amendment No. 37 proposes the deletion of "exists" and the insertion of "exist". It is also proposed to insert, on page 9, line 17, after the term "employees", the phase "covered by that agreement".

The phrasing I seek to correct is based on what I believe to be a false assumption, namely, that a suitable arrangement within an employment must necessarily consist of a single unified agreement that applies to everyone in that company. Members touched on this earlier today and in particular circumstances the objectives of the legislation could best be served by having a number of separate agreements to cater for diverse groups. For example, one might have separate agreements with employees at different levels of seniority within a company. In certain circumstances, the company might wish to share more information with those at a relatively senior level than with the general mass of employees. This approach should be welcomed and facilitated in the legislation. This agreement would legitimise such separate arrangements. I stress it would not require them but would merely facilitate them if a company wished to do so. Accepting this amendment would add an element of flexibility to what can happen which would be desirable. I believe Senator McDowell would also support it.

I will also touch on amendment No. 69 which proposes the insertion of the phrase "internal structures" in Schedule 1. This amendment accompanies the proposed amendment to section 10, although I am unsure if I can discuss them together. Senator McDowell made a good point earlier in respect of a company that might have a number of branches with a small number of people working in any one of them. I refer to larger companies with different levels of seniority. It could well be that an employer might wish to share some information with employees at some levels but not with those at other levels. The Minister of State could accept the amendment to change the wording to "agreements that exist" rather than "the agreement". In other words, it might not be simply one agreement but could be a number of agreements. The amendment is logical and sensible and the Minister of State may well be able to support it.