asked the Minister for Labour his views on whether existing legislation affords adequate protection to part-time workers; the plans, if any, he has for reforms in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Part-time Workers.
9.
In the application of much of the legislation administered by my Department, no distinction is made between full-time and part-time workers. Legislation such as the Conditions of Employment Acts, 1936 to 1944, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the Payment of Wages Act, 1979, applies to all workers irrespective of the number of hours worked.
By means of the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act, 1984, the threshold of eligibility for the legislation pertaining to unfair dismissal, minimum notice and redundancy payments was reduced to 18 hours a week, thereby bringing more workers within the scope of such legislation. I am not in a position to give any commitment to a further reduction of the eligibility threshold in the foreseeable future, because of the cost implications, which could adversely affect employment.
However, the question of coverage of part-time workers under labour legislation is included in the Discussion Document recently published by me in relation to amendment of the law governing unfair dismissals and other pieces of labour legislation. The matter will be considered further by me in the light of the views received as a result of the consultative process which I have undertaken.
The reason for asking this question was to find out what progress is being made in relation to the consultative process which was initiated following the issuing of the Discussion Document. Has the Minister had many submissions from bodies other than the FUE and the ICTU and how long does he expect the assessment process will take before we can have amending legislation before the House?
The closing date for submissions is the end of February. They will have to be examined fully, so it will probably be a matter of some months. The one area where there is some room for manoeuver is in relation to the labour laws which might bring the threshold down but there is no likelihood of that happening in the foreseeable future.
I appreciate the Minister has to take other views into account but would he accept that there is a significant growth in the numbers of people who are working less than 18 hours, that these people deserve at least the same protection as full-time workers and that the question of costs would not enter into it unless a case was found against an employer for unfair dismissal or against the State in the case of insolvency payments when a company goes out of existence. The immediate cost would not necessarily be excessive?
If the examination proved that some protection should be given to part-time workers, I would be in favour of doing something in that area. A number of Acts cover a threshold of 18 hours and there is a cost factor involved in changing the threshold. It is only three years since the time was brought down from 21 to 18 hours. There is a financial problem in changing the threshold.
Does the Minister agree that the more regulations introduced with regard to part-time work the more it will be done away with, given that the offering of part-time work is on a voluntary basis by employers? Does the Minister agree that one could end up with less part-time work being offered and that there is actually a trade-off here?
I agree with the Deputy. We had that debate here not so long ago. When it was 21 hours a number of employers employed people for 20½ hours and when it was brought down to 18 hours employers offered 17½ hours. The overall effect was that there was less part-time work.
Surely the Minister will agree that the other side of that coin is that employers appear to be using this threshold as a way of opting out of their responsibilities to their employees and that that is a very strong argument for the elimination of this threshold altogether? Whatever one might decide about amending legislation and the kind of cover to be applied, at least there should be some basic minimum cover for part-time workers.
There is a substantial amount of cover. In the other areas the question of cover for part-time workers under enabling legislation can be extended but where it affects the threshold there is a cost factor and as Deputy Bruton pointed out one could reduce the number of part-time workers by altering the threshold.
Question No. 10 has been disposed of. We now come to Question No. 11.