Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 15, line 14, after “needs” to insert “, relevant to the functioning of his or her business,”.

These amendments relate to the slightly strange language used in the Bill. It is not really typical of how we would normally approach it. We have already discussed the solely needs-based approach rather than a rights-based or good practice-based approach. It does not focus on work-life balance as a positive good but on the balancing of pressing needs. In the way that some of these are framed there is an assumption of a tension between employer needs and employee needs rather than positive arrangements which may be put in place and which suit all. Section 13C states:

(1) An employer who receives a request for a flexible working arrangement submitted in accordance with section 13B(6) shall— (a) consider that request, having regard to his or her needs and the employee’s needs,

Consideration of the employee's needs is one thing in this particular arrangement. The same language is echoed elsewhere. In this section it relates to the issue of a flexible working arrangement in respect of care. Framing it in terms of an employer's needs is odd. We do not sign contracts simply with abstract references to the employer's needs. Needs can be anything. Needs can be the need for control or the personal desire to see people smiling at you every day. Instead, when making these decisions, I have suggested inserting "relevant to the functioning of his or her business". It is not this very loose and amorphous phrase of the employer's needs, but specifying the employer's needs that are relevant to the functioning of his or her business.

Amendment No. 31 proposes perhaps a better way to put it of describing the needs as "relevant to the fulfilling of the employee’s duties,”. An employer may have multiple needs, which I as one single employee should not be bound to be considering or managing. I should be considering whether I do the job that I have been contracted to do and that I am required to do, and whether I can perform the functions that are relevant to my duties as an employee. That is the relevant thing to consider when considering a flexible work arrangement and not a kind of power balance or emotional play-off of needs.

That language relating to the employer is not appropriate for workplace legislation. We should be tying the consideration process to that flexible working arrangement. I accept needs might be appropriate in this case which relates to the flexible caring duties or needs of an employee. However, for an employer the key thing to consider is if the employee can perform the role they have been hired to perform and what the employer needs from them for the functioning of the business.

That particular one relates to where an employee is requesting flexible working arrangements in terms of care. Amendment No. 53 relates to a different section, section 20 on the right to request a remote working arrangement. Senator Currie has been very articulate on remote working arrangements. Remote working arrangements are not based solely on need. They should not need to be based on need. Remote working arrangements are not simply based on someone's need to care. It should not be necessary to put a needs case forward when requesting remote working.

An employee may simply prefer a remote working arrangement. As we discussed the last day, an employee might simply prefer not to commute four days a week or three days a week. An employee may, for example, like to listen to music while they work. They might want to be able to look out their window. They may think they work better when they are at home. There are lots of reasons for seeking remote working. Framing this as the weighing-up of employees' needs and employers' needs is the opposite of seeking a transformative work-life balance which encourages work-life balance as a positive thing wherever possible.

I do not understand why this needs framing is being inserted. The same language is being copied across from something which at least on the employees' side has a need basis relating to the need to provide care. Why is that same language being used for remote working arrangements? This is in section 21 on page 27. I have used the same wording in amendment No. 53. I will reserve the right to come back on that because I think that needs framing is wrong altogether. At a minimum, we should be speaking solely about the needs that are relevant to the functioning of his or her business. I think the needs framing in general needs challenging in that section.