Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

72. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to amend the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017 to reduce the look-back reference period to 13 months or less and narrow the bands of hours into which persons can be placed; and her further plans to provide a definition in law for casual employment. [8349/18]

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the Second Stage debate on the Bill, many Deputies expressed the view in relation to the banded hours provision, that the bands are too wide and the 18 month reference period is too long. I indicated that I would consider these matters in the context of possible Committee Stage amendments.However, I would like to make a number of points. There will be an administrative burden on employers in implementing the banded hours provision so therefore it is desirable that an ‘easy’ divisor is used. I am open to discussing a reference period of 13 months or less and in this respect I note that the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in their report on the Banded Hour Contracts Bill 2016 recommended a reference period of 12 months. In relation to the width of the bands, I am open to discussing the option of narrower bands at Committee Stage once the bands allow a reasonable degree of flexibility. This can benefit both employers and employees. A greater number of bands but with more narrow ranges of hours will be more difficult to operate.

We know that banded hours arrangements are operating successfully in the retail sector but we must acknowledge that what is appropriate to individual employments in the retail sector might not work as well in other sectors. This legislation will apply to all employers in all sectors of the economy and not just the retail sector. Therefore, we must be careful to introduce banded hours provisions that work more generally across the economy, rather than imposing on all, a particular banded hours model that is adapted to the retail sector.

Regarding a definition of casual work, the Organisation of Working Time Actwas enacted in 1997. Section 18 of that Act refers to ‘work of a casual nature’ but does not define it. This has not led to a regulatory problem of employers incorrectly categorising employees as ‘casual’ in the 20 years since enactment. It is not good practice to put definitions in legislation when the plain, ordinary meaning of a word is capable of being understood by the bodies adjudicating on it.

The WRC and the Labour Court are capable of examining all of the circumstances of a particular case and then making an appropriate judgement as to whether or not a particular arrangement is genuinely casual. The Bill introduces a new requirement on employers to provide in writing shortly after the commencement of employment what the employer reasonably expects the normal length of the working day and the normal length of the working week will be. Furthermore, deliberately misrepresenting this will become an offence under the Government’s proposals and I am sure that employers will not want to fall foul of this provision in the Bill.