John McGahon (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 17, line 10, after “occupation” to insert “that are reasonable and demonstratable”

I apologise to the Minister as Senator Currie is unavailable. I will speak to the overall grouping, in particular amendments Nos. 36, 55 and 57. The point that Senator Currie is quite keen to get across in relation to amendment No. 36 is that whatever the grounds for refusal are, be it for remote or flexible working arrangements, they need to be reasonable and demonstratable. Using existing parental leave legislation is a good approach because it gives the employee conditions to request flexible work in the first place. The grounds for terminating the arrangement are far too wide, in Senator Currie's view. She is quite concerned about their potentially sweeping nature. What the Senator is trying to do in amendment No. 36, and on what she is hoping the Minister reassure her, is that by adding "reasonable and demonstratable" it puts the onus on employers to be reasonable in refusing or terminating the arrangement in a way that they must be able to demonstrate to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC.

On amendments Nos. 55 and 57, the issue here is that it removes the condition that someone might have to be available in the office to cover the work of somebody working remotely. Senator Currie does not see the point of this amendment. If the role is remote, someone is not needed in the office to do it in the first place because the person working remotely is already doing that job from a remote location. The point of remote working is that operations accommodate people and their ability to work from home and work remotely. It is not to expect someone else to do their job when they are not there. On amendments Nos. 55 and 57, Senator Currie believes the legislation misses the point of remote working in the first instance.