Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

312. 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 if she will make a statement on the matter. [13046/18]

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 18 month look back reference period is too long. I indicated that I would consider these matters in the context of possible Committee Stage amendments.

There are a few issues that need to be considered. 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. The 18 month period was chosen as it would take account of seasonal fluctuations as well as the normal peaks and troughs of business. It also reflects that the academic year does not match the calendar year.

It is important that the look-back period and the length of time an employee is statutorily entitled to stay in a band of hours remain the same . Any reduction in the look back period would reduce the period of security provided to employees. It is also important that we use an easy divisor; therefore, 13 months as a reference period might not be desirable from that point of view. I am however, open to discussing a reference period closer to a year 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.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

313. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to amend the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017 to narrow the bands of hours into which persons can be placed (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13047/18]

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

During the Second Stage debate on the Bill, some Deputies expressed the view that the bands are too wide in the Banded Hours provision. I indicated that I would consider this matter in the context of possible Committee Stage amendments once the bands allow a reasonable degree of flexibility.

In relation to the width of the bands, it was clear from the public consultation and from the ICTU/Ibec dialogue process that the bands selected should be sufficiently broad so as to allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in managing the banded hours arrangements. This can benefit both employers and employees. A greater number of bands but with more narrow ranges of hours could be more difficult to operate.

The purpose of the banded hours provision is to ensure that an employee’s contract reflects the actual hours worked consistently by the employee over an extended period. This will help to address problems of uncertainty of hours/predictability of income, which can cause difficulties for people seeking mortgages/credit etc.

I recognise that some companies that have bargained collectively on banded hours arrangements may already have a higher number of bands with a narrower range of hours in each band, which works for those particular companies in those particular sectors of employment. I certainly do not want to interfere with these arrangements because they work very well for those employers. However, we have to recognise that the proposed legislation will apply to all employments in all sectors and not just sectors where to date banded hours are a normal part of their working environment. It is very important, therefore, that the bands achieve the outcome desired and still provide employers with a reasonable level of flexibility.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

314. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to amend the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017 to ensure that casual workers are included in the prohibition on zero-hour contracts; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13048/18]

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

The Organisation of Working Time Act was enacted in 1997. Section 18 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.

I do not believe that all casual or flexible working arrangements are wrong and should be stopped in their entirety. It is worth recalling that the UL study acknowledged that the flexibility offered by genuine casual work can be mutually beneficial for employees and employers in some cases. In certain sectors, such arrangements can help employers to satisfy peak demands and fill staffing gaps on a short-term basis. Furthermore, it is not good practice to include definitions in legislation when the plain, ordinary meaning of a word is capable of being understood by all of the bodies responsible for adjudicating on it. I am satisfied that the Workplace Relations Commission 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.