I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the implementation of an EC directive which is titled "Directive on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship". In summary, the Bill gives effect to the provisions of the directive in two main ways: First, it obliges employers to provide their employees with a written statement of particulars of their terms of employment and to notify them of any changes in those particulars. Second, it provides for a system of redress for any employee who considers that he or she has been denied entitlement to information under the terms of the Bill.
In introducing the Bill, I might refer briefly to the background and to the rationale for the introduction of the directive. Over the past number of years there has been an increasing growth in non-standard forms of work which inevitably affects the employment relationships between employees and employers. These new forms of atypical work are evidenced the growth in the level of part-time work and by the growing number of persons employed in varying alternative forms of work to the traditional fulltime job.
The increasing development in member states of such forms of atypical work allows employers the flexibility they need to respond to increased competition and to the demands of customers, while at the same time it provides opportunities for employment and facilitates workers who, for family or other reasons, prefer atypical working arrangements. However, the growth of new forms of work highlighted a need for the introduction of measures designed to safeguard the rights of employees and to create greater transparency in employment relationships between employers and employees.
The Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers, which was adopted at the European Council in Strasbourg in 1989, identified a number of measures necessary to promote improved working conditions for workers in the context of the establishment of the internal market. One of the measures identified in the Social Charter was that the conditions of employment of employees should be stipulated in laws, in a collective agreement or in a contract of employment. Arising from this provision the European Commission proposed the directive here concerned which requires member states to put in place the necessary legislative provisions to ensure that employees are provided with information on the essential elements of their contract or employment relationship.
In bringing forward this Bill to implement a directive which arises from the Social Charter, it is timely to refer to Ireland's position in relation to the social dimension enshrined in European Community policy. Ireland has supported the idea of a progressive social policy in the Community and, as a signatory of the Community Social Charter, is committed to the development of a social policy in tandem with the economic objectives of the community. We have adopted a constructive and positive approach in relation to the development of social policy, taking account, of course, of the need to avoid the imposition of costs and obligations which might adversely affect competitiveness and employment.
I am aware, of course, that there is a perception — and I emphasise it is a perception and not a reality — that the development of European Community law in relation to worker protection leads to "over-regulation" of the labour market. However, the initiatives in this area must be viewed in their overall context, just as the initiatives in domestic labour law must be viewed in the context of the overall packages which were agreed in the Programme for National Recovery and in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. At European Community level, the European Council considered that in the context of the establishment of the internal market the same importance should be attached to the social aspects as to the economic and that both of those should therefore be developed in a balanced manner.
As a member state committed to the dual objectives of economic growth and a progressive social policy, the implementation of this directive represents a further statement of progress in the development of our social policy. Therefore I am pleased to have this opportunity to put before the House this Bill, which puts in place the measures necessary for implementation of the directive.
Before dealing with the details of the Bill, one point that I would like to underline is that the Bill is primarily about the provision of information in a straightforward manner. There is much talk of consumer rights, and that is welcome. There is talk also of the need for transparency and openness in the use of language and access to information and that is reflected in the Bill. The main feature of the Bill is the requirement on employers to provide their employees wih a written statement of the particulars of their terms of employment.
The effect of that will ensure a high level of transparency in the employment relationship. The employee will have a clear and unambiguous statement of the terms of employment and both the employee and the employer will have a good understanding of their respective obligations to each other. I believe that this level of clarity will be of significant benefit to both the employer and the employee, will help to avoid subsequent disputes as to the employee's and employer's entitlements and obligations and will facilitate continuing good relations with consequent smooth operation of the enterprise. I have no doubts that in general employers recognise that the sharing of information about terms of employment, which will help to eliminate any misconception and misunderstandings about the employment relationship, represents a positive approach to proper management.
Of course, the need for communication between both sides in relation to terms of employment and the benefits of fostering a healthy level of transparency has long been recognised here. To be precise, for the past 20 years most employees have been entitled to a range of information, mainly under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. In fact, to a large extent the provisions of the directive are in tandem with the provisions of that Act. The range of information required by the directive, and consequently by the Bill, is more extensive, however, in order to reflect the needs arising from developments in employment arrangements over the years. It replaces and builds on existing legislative proposals and provisions.
While I will deal with the provisions of the Bill, in greater detail, I would like to mention briefly some of the main differences between the 1973 Act and the provisions which have been included in this Bill in order to implement the terms of the directive.
The scope of the Bill is somewhat wider than the existing legislation as it applies to all employees other than those who work less than eight hours a week or have less than four weeks continuous service. The 1973 Act, as amended by the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, excludes those who work less than eight hours a week or have less than 13 weeks continuous service and also excludes certain limited types of employments. The range of employment particulars required to be included in the statement required under this Bill is more extensive in some respects than is currently required under the existing legislation. The Bill introduces, for the first time, a complaints procedure which gives employees access to the Rights Commissioner and, an appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal if they believe that they have failed to secure their full entitlement.
The system of redress which I have incorporated in the Bill reflects the requirement of the directive that member states put in place the necessary measures to enable employees who consider themselves wronged by the failure of their employers to comply with their obligations to pursue their complaints by judicial process. I am satisfied that the most appropriate procedure for the purpose of dealing with complaints from employees under this legislation is through access to the Rights Commissioner, with a right of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and enforcement of determinations, if necessary, in the District Court. This procedure will allow an inexpensive and readily accessible system of redress to employees, is consistent with similar provisions contained in other relevant labour legislation and satisfies the requirements of the directive.
The provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, in so far as they relate to an employer's obligation to provide information on terms of employment, are provided solely for prosecutions of employers who failed to meet those obligations. That means of redress has attracted criticism over the years as being unsatisfactory from the employees' point of view. Moreover, it is not, in any event, sufficient to meet the specific requirements in the directive. The provision concerned is being repealed by the provisions of this Bill and replaced by the system of redress which I have described.
I would like to turn now to the provisions of the Bill and elaborate on its main features. Section 1 is an interpretation section and includes definitions of the terms "contract of employment", "employer" and "employee". The definition of employee is designed to comply with article 1.1 of the directive. The definition of "contract of employment" has been designed to encompass not only the traditional contract of service but also contracts under which workers are engaged by employment agencies. The decision to bring employment agency workers within the scope of this legislation follows from a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to examine the position of these workers. This commitment arose from a court decision that agency workers do not have a contract of service and are not, therefore, covered by most labour legislation. Deputies may recall that agency workers were also brought within the scope of the recently enacted Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993 in a different way to the manner in which they were brought within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. I am sure that will arise in discussions later. There is an obvious reason for that.
Section 2 provides for exclusions from the provisions of the Bill. It provides that the legislation shall not apply to an employee who is normally expected to work for less than eight hours in a week or who has been in continuous service for less than four weeks consistent with the terms of the directive. It is intended to achieve the correct balance between the need to ensure an adequate level of protection for employees and the necessity for employers to be able to maintain a certain level of flexibility and administrative freedom in respect of the very casual or occasional employment which falls below these thresholds.
Section 2 also contains an enabling provision to allow other classes of employment to be excluded by order from any provision of the Bill. I must stress, however, that the power to exclude classes of employment from the Bill is restricted by the terms of the directive.
Section 3 is a key provision. It specifies the particulars of the terms of employment which an employer must give in writing to an employee and provides that the information must be given not later than two months after the date of commencement of employment.
Many of the particulars specified in section 3 of the Bill are already specified in section 9 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, which section is being repealed by this Bill. The 1973 Act required that details be given to the employee on such matters as the date of commencement of employment, remuneration, hours of work, holidays, sick pay and pensions and notice periods.
This Bill extends the list of particulars to include such further details as the name and address of the employer, the place of work, the job title or the nature of the work, the expected duration of temporary contracts of employment and a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of employment. Section 3 also requires that the written statement be signed by or on behalf of the employer and that it must be retained for one year after the employee's employment has ceased. The requirement to provide a written statement only applies to employees recruited from the date of commencement of the legislation. Section 6, which I will come to shortly, deals with the rights of existing employees.
Section 4 deals with employment outside the State. It provides that in the case of employees assigned to work abroad for a period of not less than one month — firms frequently take on contracts in other countries and employees are out of the country for a period — an employer must provide, prior to the employee's departure from the State, the complete written statement described in section 3. In addition the employer must provide certain supplementary information which includes the period of employment outside the State and the benefits in cash or kind resulting from the employment outside the State. I am sure that Deputies will appreciate how important it is for an employee to have possession of all essential information about the employment abroad before he or she leaves the country.
Section 5 deals with changes in the particulars of the terms of employment and provides that any such changes must be notified to the employee within one month of the change coming into operation. However, where the change is related to the employee being assigned to work outside the State, the change must be notified before the departure of the employee from the State. This is consistent with the provisions of the previous section which seek to ensure that employees are made fully aware of their particulars of employment before they leave the State.
Section 6 makes provision in relation to existing employees. It provides that where an existing employee requires his or her employer to furnish a written statement of particulars of terms of employment, the employer must supply the written statement within two months of the date of request. The position of existing employees was given careful consideration when the directive has being adopted. It was recognised that it would not be reasonable or administratively feasible to require employers automatically to furnish a written statement of employment terms to each existing employee on the date of implementation of the directive in national legislation. It was decided as a compromise that employers would only be required to provide particulars of the terms of employment to existing employees if so requested.
I referred earlier to the fact that the terms of the directive require member states to put in place adequate measures to allow employees to pursue complaints if they consider that their employers have not accorded them their entitlements under this legislation. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill make provision for an adjudicative process and I have dealt with them in a global way at the commencement of my speech.
Section 10 deals with evidence in relation to prosecution of a person for failure to attend before the Employment Appeals Tribunal or refusal to give evidence, or failure or refusal to produce documents. It mirrors a provision in the recently enacted unfair dismissals amending legislation. It is intended to resolve problems which have arisen in the past in prosecution cases in providing evidence of failure or refusal to give evidence or produce documents to the tribunal. Section 11 is a standard requirement, as is section 12. Section 13 repeals sections 9 and 10 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Section 14 is a standard provision dealing with the short title and date of commencement of the Bill.
Before concluding I would like to reiterate that this Bill represents further evidence of Ireland's commitment to full implementation of measures adopted by the Community in the context of the social dimension enshrined in European Union policy. Moreover, I am satisfied that the legislative requirement to provide written information on the terms of employment will be seen as a positive step in establishing greater transparency in the employment relationships between employers and employees. I believe that the good employer has nothing to fear from this legislation. I am confident that the provisions contained in the Bill will be seen as an asset to the continued development of harmonious relationships in the workplace.
There has been much comment on the need for deregulation. The suggestion has been made that if workers' rights and social policy were diminished, somehow that would be the panacea for unemployment; but I do not hold that point of view. Legislation that is enacted must be clear and the terms relating to it must be transparent for the employer and employee. I take note of the way the UK operates at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels and through its public press. There has been great brouhaha in the UK recently about the enactment throughout the land of deregulation. This modest directive which has been translated into legislation applies equally to all member states and was implemented by the UK in the trade union reform and employment rights legislation of 1993. The UK likes to pose as the arch-deregulators and to point out that it has no social or trade union legislation. It has much more legislation in that area than has many other countries. This legislation is in line with the policies that have been followed and I have great pleasure in recommending it to the House.
