Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, lines 41 to 43 and in page 8, lines 1 to 15, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, an employee is a comparable employee in relation to an agency worker if—

(a) that employee's employer and the hirer of the agency worker is the same person,

(b) that employee and the agency worker work at the same place of work within the meaning of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 or, where that employee and the agency worker work or are required to work at different locations, their work is directed and supervised by the hirer from the same place, and

(c)(i) both that employee and the agency worker do the same work under the same or similar conditions or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work, or

(ii) no employee of the hirer of the agency worker is a comparable employee by reference to subparagraph (i) and the work done by that employee is the same or similar in nature to that done by the agency worker and any differences between the work done or the conditions under which it is done by each are of minor significance when viewed as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant.".

I wish to focus on amendment No. 8. If we do not pass it, there is a danger that, as a result of the doubts expressed, further disputes and differences will arise and that there will be a need for more conciliation, arbitration and court cases. Amendment No. 8 states the hirer company should pick the comparator. I love that word. I had not heard it previously, but I accept that it may be a common legal term. If we are to avoid disputes in the future, we must find a way to decide what the comparator will be in order to determine which particular agency workers should be paid. In each case either the union representing an agency worker or the worker will indicate what the comparator should be, whereas the hirer company will state it should be something else. Successive disputes will occur as a result. Amendment No. 8 stipulates that the hirer company should choose the comparator and indicate the going rate which should apply. The company would be obliged to have solid grounds for its decision. If the position remains vague, court cases will arise and people will be forced into conciliation, arbitration, etc. The provision would be much clearer if the amendment was accepted. Of the three amendments in this group, amendment No. 8 is the one about which I am really concerned.