This Bill is about change. We are living in a time of a profound rhythm and complexity of change and this is manifest everywhere, not least in the workplace. One of the many features of workplace change has been the alteration in working time and working relationships.
It has been apparent for some time that a growing number of people in the workforce are employed in some alternative to the traditional full-time job. This has called into question the adequacy of current protective legislation, which to a large extent is aimed at meeting the needs of full-time employees. As the law stands, many part-time workers could have many years service with the same employer and yet have no entitlement to holidays, maternity leave, minimum notice or redundancy payments and have no redress in the event of unfair dismissal. This Bill is designed to rectify that situation.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that part-time workers who are normally expected to work for at least eight hours a week for an employer and have completed 13 weeks continuous service with the employer, will enjoy the same protection under labour legislation as full-time workers. By "labour legislation" I mean the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 and the Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990. What I am doing, therefore, in this short Bill is amending seven separate sets of enactments, some of which date back almost a quarter of a century.
There are two points which I want to emphasise at the outset. One is that all workers including part-time workers are already covered by some of the labour legislation in force. I would like to underline this. No distinction is drawn between full-time and part-time workers in the laws which deal with such matters as occupational safety and health, employment equality, the protection of young persons, the protection of employment or the payment of wages. Their exclusion from the Acts which I mention stems from provisions in those Acts which specify weekly hours threshold of 18 hours or, in the case of the Holidays Act, a threshold of 120 hours a month or 1,400 hours a year.
The second point I want to underscore is that this Bill is about part-time employees as defined in the various Acts being amended. It is not about contract workers or agency workers. Nor does it introduce rights or entitlements which are not available to full-time workers. It is my intention — and this is a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— to examine several issues which have arisen for agency workers, both full-time and part-time and similarly to explore in somewhat greater depth questions posed by the spread of contract work. This Bill is not the place and this is not the time to tackle these issues and it is as well for me to clarify that at this early stage.
By way of introduction I would like to focus on five main themes: why the State should consider action in respect of part-time workers; the extent and the nature of the growth of part-time work in Ireland; the characteristics of part-time workers, including the important gender dimension; the present situation of part-time workers under labour legislation and the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the real needs of firms which require greater flexibility in the organisation of production and, on the other, workers needs for stability and society's concern that particular categories of workers should not be discriminated against.
There are four good reasons why the State should consider action in respect of part-time workers. First, there seems on the face of it to be no good reason to discriminate in the matter of, say, protection from arbitrary dismissal between a person who regularly works full-time and one who regularly works part-time. In other words, the question is not so much "why statutory protection of part-time work", as "why not".
Second, much part-time work in Ireland is female-dominated and disproportionately concentrated in the services sector, typically occurring at low levels of skill, poor pay and prospects, with a low likelihood of union protection. It is difficult to imagine a group more likely to be exploited and, for that reason, more deserving of State support in terms of statutory standards.
Third, with the exception of Britain and Ireland, most member states of the European Community and many western countries have adopted action to promote part-time work and to protect the rights of part-time workers. Thus, in many European countries basic terms and conditions apply equally to full and part-time workers with both categories enjoying the same rights.
Finally, experience suggests that companies ought to adopt progressive policies in their own enlightened self-interest. Where they have not, or where they will not, the State will have to do it for them.
It is my judgment that developments in relation to the recent growth and changing composition of part-time work requires that State action in relation to this category cannot be delayed further.
The labour force survey of 1975 provides the first set of data on part-time work in Ireland. Between that year and 1989, the most recent year for which we have data, the number of part-time workers increased from 71,500 to 82,000. Although this represents an increase of 10,500 part-time jobs over 14 years, or 15 per cent over the 1975 level, the proportion of persons working part-time in Ireland has remained relatively unchanged. In 1975 part-time workers represented about 6.7 per cent of those with an occupation and the share in 1989 was only slightly larger at 7.5 per cent. Moreover, research carried out by Dr. Eileen Drew of TCD demonstrates that it has not been a steady growth but a fluctuating one with part-time workers accounting for 7.3 per cent of persons with an occupation in 1977, 5.1 per cent in 1979, regaining in 1983 the 1975 level of 6.7 per cent and peaking in 1988 at 7.8 per cent before declining slightly in 1989.
There are, however, a number of important changes over that period. One of the most important is the distinction made in the labour force between "regular" and "occasional" part-time workers. Regular part-time employment has increased very significantly since 1975 when it stood at 42,500. In 1989 that figure was 70,000. The lesson we can draw from this is that part-time work is becoming a more permanent feature of the labour market.
There are two further points of note concerning the composition of the part-time labour force. One is the change over time in the sectoral composition. In 1975 one in three part-time jobs was in agriculture, forestry and fishing. That figure has now declined to one in seven. Commerce — which includes retail distribution, banking and business services — and professional services increased their share largely at the expense of agriculture.
It is in the services sector that the most significant change in part-time work has taken place. In 1975 part-time workers in the service sector made up half of the total part-time labour force. By 1989 this figure had risen to about three quarters. This increase has been particularly rapid in the 1980s and hence it has been in services that the real growth in part-time employment has occurred which has tended to be camouflaged by the static levels of part-time work in manufacturing industry or the falling levels in agriculture.
The second point relates to the gender dimension of the part-time labour force. Relative to other EC countries, a higher proportion of men work part-time in Ireland. While an examination of part-time work between 1975 and 1989 demonstrates that it is a predominantly female option there is still a substantial number of men working part-time, even if for different reasons than women. Men account for about 30 per cent of all part-time workers and are more likely to work part-time either upon entry to the labour force, possibly to facilitate study or multiple job-holding or at an age close to or following retirement. In contrast, women account for more than three quarters of all part-time workers in the 25-44 age-bands which are associated with child rearing. Over 70 per cent of female part-time workers are married; about 60 per cent of the males are single; about one third of the part-time males were under 25, with a further third aged 25-44. In the case of females, less than one sixth were under 25, more than half were aged 25-44 and about 30 per cent in the 45-64 age group.
To sum up the scale and trends: part-time work and particularly regular part-time work has increased in the last 15 years; while it is a predominantly female option, there is still a substantial number of men working part-time in Ireland, but for different reasons than women. The part-time worker is best described as female, aged 25-44 and married with dependent children. Nearly three quarters of part-time workers are employed in the service sector.
I have already referred to the extent to which Ireland departs from the EC norm in regard to the gender of part-time workers. That is not the only important difference. In 1988 the percentage share of part-time employees in relation to all employees in the Community overall was 13.6 per cent. This ranged from 4 per cent in Greece to 29.4 per cent in The Netherlands. Other big users of part-time workers were Denmark, 25.5 per cent, and the UK, 22.8 per cent. Ireland, at 8.2 per cent ranked seventh among the EC member states, at slightly above half the European average. In other words, we have a very low level of part-time work by international standards.
A major issue associated with part-time work in many countries is that of the divergent treatment of part-time workers compared to their full-time counterparts. Part-time work is widely condemned as a threat to full-time jobs, a precarious form of employment and a source of unequal treatment of women workers. It is also defended as a regular well-protected way to reconcile the needs and preferences of workers with the operational requirements of enterprises; to create jobs; and to benefit workers with family responsibilities, workers approaching retirement and other special groups.
It may thus be argued that both the detractors and proponents of part-time work are often correct, depending on the country and the enterprise concerned. While empirical evidence on the working conditions and work history of part-time workers is thin on the ground, the perception of many is that part-time workers are unfairly treated, that their pay is low, that they lack fringe benefits and provisions and that most of them are working in job ghettos with little chance of training or promotion. There is certainly some empirical evidence in Ireland that the hourly earnings of part-time workers tend to be below that of their full-time equivalents. Research by the ESRI disclosed that the low paid part-time workers are predominantly women.
In general, existing data have not been able to answer key questions about the work history of part-time workers. Limited evidence on these issues is provided by the reasons given for working part-time in answers to the labour force survey. These show that most women work part-time because of family responsibilities or did not want a full-time job. Only 25 per cent of part-time women workers cited inability to find a full-time job as the main reason they were working part-time. These figures imply that the negative connotations associated with part-time work are not sufficient to overcome preferences and family responsibilities which at present result in women choosing to work part-time rather than full-time.
If it is the case, as some researchers have speculated, that part-time workers tend to be limited to moving frequently between low status, low skilled jobs with few fringe benefits, the increased protection of part-time workers under the law and measures to assist them to break into the wider labour market need to be placed high on the agenda. The major area of concern, as I have already noted from the contributions of Members in earlier debates, relates to part-time employees who are heavily dependent on this form of employment and who are employed permanently or semi-permanently on a part-time basis. I am concerned that regular part-time workers who are employed on a long term basis are denied entitlements to the most basic protections which are afforded under labour law. This is the inequity I am seeking to redress.
As I have explained already, some of our labour legislation, for example in the areas of occupational safety and health, employment equality and payment of wages, makes no distinction between full-time and part-time employees. However, some laws do not apply to workers who do not work at least 18 hours per week. The idea was to exclude persons whose employment was of a subsidiary nature or of inconsiderable extent. This also was a requirement of social security legislation but is being removed by my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare by regulations which will come into force on 6 April 1991. The primary protective employment Acts which currently exclude workers who are not employed for a minimum of 18 hours per week are the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, the Redundancy Payments Acts, and to some extent the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Acts. Based on labour force survey figures, the 18 hours threshold has the effect of excluding approximately 20,000 employees, of whom at least three quarters are women, from the benefit of the legislation which incorporates that threshold.
The Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973, does not apply an 18 hours eligibility threshold. Instead, it excludes from annual leave entitlement those who do not work at least 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours in the leave year; and in order for a part-timer to gain entitlement to a public holiday, he must work for at least 120 hours in the preceding five weeks. The higher hours thresholds which apply under the Holidays Act have the effect of excluding approximately 45,000 part-timers, of whom 76 per cent are women, from annual leave entitlement, and an estimated 38,000, 78 per cent women from public holiday entitlement.
It is clear that part-time work meets real needs of firms and that there are many workers, too, who want to work on a part-time basis. The FIE have made clear to me why employers want more part-time work. Their reasons relate to changing market conditions and extended hours of opening particularly in services which cannot be undertaken within the standard working day or week. The major benfit of part-time work in businesses is that it provides flexibility, allowing the employer to respond to increased competition and the changing demands of customers.
Further information on the reasons which motivate Irish employers to use part-time work emerge from a survey in course of completion in the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. This survey indicates that in Ireland the introduction of part-time work is more a result of economic considerations — cost advantages to the employers — than a response to employees' wishes.
I have no intention of calling into question the need for part-time work. The fact is that employment relationships in this country, as elsewhere, are diversifying considerably in response to international competitiveness and to radical changes in the organisation of production, often stimulated by technological change. These developments, it has to be said, have helped to maintain competitiveness and to maintain and create jobs.
Very often these changes on the demand side of the labour market are accompanied by supply-side changes in the matter of workers aspirations and individuals' needs. Part-time work seems to satisfy better the aspirations and individual and family needs of a number of workers.
Part-time work can offer a valid and useful entry point to the labour market for people who are excluded from it, although, so far in Ireland, there is little evidence to support that. Part-time work will, for some, be a valid and long term employment form, providing them with the flexibility to fulfil the varied demands which they face.
My objective, therefore, in approaching the thresholds which kept some 20,000 workers beyond the pale of labour legislation, was to ensure that safeguards such as exist for their full-time colleagues also exist to protect part-time workers. At the same time I needed to avoid the danger of over-regulation which would jeopardise flexibility, hinder employment growth, and drive some of those jobs into the black economy.
The result is the simple Bill before you which extends labour legislation to those who normally work eight hours or more a week and have completed 13 weeks with the same employer. These regular part-time workers will be treated similarly to full-time workers in relation to all the various statutory rights. They will have to fulfil the same service and other conditions as full-time workers to become eligible for those rights.
Some have called for the elimination of all thresholds. In choosing to retain a threshold and to set it at eight hours a week, I was influenced by two considerations. One was the decision of Vasso Papandreou, Social Affairs Commissioner, to provide for an eight-hour threshold in her proposed directives on non-standard forms of employment, including part-time work in order to rule out any disproportionate administrative costs which could run counter to the objectives sought. Moreover, only in the past few days she has included an eight-hour threshold in her proposals for a directive on a form of proof of an employment relationship. The other consideration which influenced my selection of an eight-hour threshold was that such a low level limited the possibility of employers deliberately adjusting their working hours to bring them below the new hours threshold. I will return in a few moments to this issue of preventing the evasion of obligations under the proposed new law.
Let me explain, now, the terms of the Bill in some detail. As I have already said, this Bill, although relatively short, attempts the complicated task of amending seven separate sets of Acts. Because of this, the Bill may seem relatively obscure and inaccessible to the casual reader. This has been recognised by one eminent lawyer in the Lower House as being unfortunate but necessary in the interests of legal precision. I would like to assure the Seanad that every attempt has been made to simplify the Bill while still ensuring that it achieves its objectives without having other unintended effects on the body of legislation it seeks to amend. In passing, I would mention that adequate explanatory literature will be prepared and disseminated when these proposals have been enacted.
The Bill is structured so as to define "regular part-time" employees in section 1 and to then apply the various Acts to that group of employees in the subsequent sections. The complexity which arose when attempting this task, was that the specific provisions which currently exclude regular part-timers from each of the enactments vary. The particular group of individuals who would be categorised as "regular part-time" employees under one Act would not be identical to the group currently excluded under another Act. For example, employees are excluded from the Unfair Dismissals Act by virtue of an 18-hour per week requirement but are excluded from the Holiday Act by a 120 hour per month requirement. Because of this fact, I set out in section 1 each of the "excluding provisions" which at present prevent "regular part-time" employees from coming within the scope of each particular Act or set of Acts which it is intended to amend.
The concept of an "excluding provision" is the key to understanding the Bill and to avert any confusion I want to clarify it. What I mean by an "excluding provision" in section 1 is the provision or provisions which exclude certain workers at present from the seven sets of acts I am going to amend. If workers are excluded from those Acts by virtue of those provisions and meet the minimum criteria in this Bill they are regular part-time employees. "Regular part-time" employees, the target group of this Bill are, therefore, defined as those who have at least 13 weeks service, are normally expected to work at least eight hours per week and who are not at present covered by the relevant enactment because of an excluding provision.
As I have already argued I felt that the minimum qualifications of eight hours per week and 13 weeks service were the appropriate thresholds to define the group of regular part-timers who could and should benefit from the protection of labour law.
In introducing a 13-week threshold in the Bill it was the intention that this would ensure that students and other short term temporary part-time employees would not be covered by the Bill and that the Bill would not create a disincentive to such short periods of employment. The 13 week period ensures on the one hand an element of commitment or permanence on the part of the regular part-time employee and, on the other hand, that casual or occasional workers will still be largely excluded from the provisions of the protective legislation involved.
I decided, as set out in section 2 (1), to calculate the 13 weeks in accordance with the First Schedule to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. This is the mechanism used to calculate continuous service the full-time employees and, since its inception in the early 1970s, has proven to be an effective and satisfactory method of determining continuity. Where any disputes arise in this respect, the employees will be able to put the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal for determination.
Concern has been expressed that unscrupulous employers might try to evade resposibilities imposed by this Bill by (a) using fixed term contracts of less than 13 weeks duration followed by a break in employment and then reemployment on the same basis; or (b) reducing employees' working hours below the new threshold of eight per week.
I have considered this matter is some depth and, although I am satisfied that the number of employers who might try to evade their responsibilities in this way would be very small, I have concluded that it would be best to give the Employment Appeals Tribunal express powers to deal with the perceived problem. This is done in section 2(2). I would stress that this anti-evasion provision is not intended to penalise employers who use fixed term contracts or have to reduce an employee's working hours for genuine reasons unconnected with this Bill.
Section 2(3) of the Bill specifies that where a service qualification of 13 weeks or longer already applies in an Act which this Bill seeks to extend to regular part-time employees, then the original 13 weeks which is required under this Bill, to qualify as a regular part-time employee, will count towards the longer service period. An example of this arises under, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, where an employee must have one year's service to be fully covered by the Act. Under this Bill the regular part-timers first 13 weeks will count towards the one year requirement. This provision in the Bill is justifiable on equity grounds but, in any event was considered necessary to avoid confusion and to reduce administrative difficulties which might arise if the 13 week qualifying period were not to be incorporated in the longer service requirement. I think the provision is justified on equity grounds.
While the first 13 weeks of employment will count towards longer service periods it will not confer any other benefits or rights under the various Acts. Section 2 (4) of the Bill, for instance, ensures that no entitlement to holidays will be built up in the initial 13 weeks period. If this were not provided for, a real cost barrier to employment beyond 13 weeks would be created, leading to a reduction in regular part-time employment opportunities. Some employers who would on the beginning of the 14th week of employment become liable for a backdated holiday entitlement might be tempted not to retain people beyond that time and section 2 (4) is intended to prevent this disincentive to regular part-time employment.
Section 3 of the Bill is a key provision. This provides for the application of all the relevant Acts to regular part-time employees, with the exception of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973. In other words, section 3 of the Bill extends to regular part-time employees the benefits of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1990, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984, the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981 and the Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency) Acts, 1984 and 1990. Because of the definition of regular part-time employee which has been used in section 1 of the Act, it is possible for me to extend in this clear and simple provision all of these Acts to the target group on essentially the same basis as they are applied to full-time employees.
The provisions of section 3 are very important as they give regular part-time employees the protection of basic labour laws which have been built up in the State over the last 25 years and which are relied upon by most other workers to regulate and protect their employment. Regular part-time employees have been very vulnerable to exploitation and when this has arisen they have not been able to call on the basic legal protection that exists for other workers. For example, a regular part-time employee could be employed for ten or 15 years with the same employer, giving sterling service and could then be let go at the whim of the employer. Those workers could not in the past rely on the Unfair Dismissals Act to protect them, they could not appeal their dismissal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and they had no entitlement to a redundancy payment after their 15 years service. It is this type of vulnerability which the provisions of the Bill seek to redress.
Another area of vulnerability arose in relation to female part-time employees who became pregnant. Women constitute almost three quarters of the part-time labour force and when these women became pregnant they were not protected from arbitrary dismissal due to their pregnancy as they were not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act. Neither were they covered by the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, and hence they had no entitlement to take maternity leave and have their job protected until their return. These women either had to give up their job when their baby was born or else hope that the employer would hold the job open for a couple of weeks by which time they might be able to return to work. This, again, was a highly inequitable situation as the same period of maternity leave is clearly required by all women workers. The provisions of section 3 of the Bill will now provide that all women regular part-time employees will be entitled to that minimum period of 14 weeks maternity leave enjoyed by other female employees and they will be entitled to have their job held open for that period with full protection from dismissal during the period of maternity leave. I am sure the extension of these entitlements will be welcomed by the many thousands of women who are working part-time on a permanent basis.
Section 4 of the Bill deals with the extension of holiday entitlements to regular part-time employees. Basically, the Bill provides for the application of the provisions of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, to regular part-time employees in the same way as they are applied to full-time employees, with the broad exception of the way in which annual leave entitlements are calculated.
Under the 1973 Act, employees who work at least 120 hours per month or 1,400 hours per year are entitled to three weeks annual leave. There is no obvious equivalent to the 120 hour requirement for regular part-time employees as defined in this Bill. Therefore, the Bill attempts to provide an alternative mechanism which will give regular part-time employees an approximately equivalent level of entitlement to annual leave as full-time employees. Section 4 (3) (a) provides that regular part-time employees, as defined in the Bill, will be entitled to annual leave at the rate of six hours for every 100 hours worked.
Other important provisions of the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973, such as the public holiday entitlement and the method of determining times and pay for annual leave, are being extended, under section 4 of the Bill, to all regular part-time employees. I regard this section as one of great importance as, in the past, a regular part-time employee could be working year in, year out, without getting any annual holidays or any time off or compensation for public holidays. I believe this was an intolerable position and that it was not correct that people who are permanent members of the labour force should be left open to this form of exploitation. Accordingly, I feel that the provisions in section 4 of the Bill will also be welcomed by all in the House and will safeguard the rights of these employees to an annual holiday and to the public holidays which are at present enjoyed by the vast majority of the labour force.
Because the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 is a relatively complex Act drafted primarily with the intention of providing entitlements to full-time employees, a number of the provisions of that Act have had to be amended to make them applicable to regular part-time employees. I would like to explain the purpose of some of these provisions as they may seem somewhat obscure to some Members of the House.
Section 4 (2) is intended to ensure that provisions in the 1973 Act which are not appropriate to "regular part-time employees" are not applied to them.
Section 4 (3) (b) provides that time spent by regular part-time employees on annual leave shall count as time worked for the purposes of earning annual leave entitlement. The subsection replaces an equivalent section in the 1973 Act, part of the wording of which is not appropriate in the context of regular part-time employees.
Section 4 (3) (c) modifies further provisions in the Act of 1973, the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Under the Act of 1973 a qualifying employee with eight months service is generally entitled to an unbroken period of leave of two weeks. Section 4 (3) (c) provides an equivalent entitlement for regular part-time employees. Because the annual leave entitlement of regular part-time employees is to be reckoned in terms of hours rather than weeks, it is necessary to provide an alternative to the full-timer's two week entitlement. The alternative provided in the Bill in section 4 (3) (c) is a choice between the leave entitlement earned over the eight months period concerned or of two-thirds of the total leave entitlement earned in the year concerned. Either way, regular part-time workers will be entitled to an unbroken period away from the workplace as their full-time colleagues are at present.
Section 4 (3) (d) of the Bill also modifies a provision of the 1973 Act part of the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Section 5 (1) of the 1973 Act provides for payment of compensation for annual leave due on termination of employment. However, the method of determining compensation in the 1973 Act is based on the concept of the employee having a "qualifying month of service". This is not applicable in relation to regular part-time employees as under this Bill they will receive entitlement on the basis of six hours for every 100 hours worked. Accordingly, section 4 (3) (d) provides for compensation on a basis which is proportionate to the normal weekly rate of pay.
Section 4 (3) (e) modifies a further provision of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Section 5 (3) of the 1973 Act provides that where employment ceases in the five week period ending before a public holiday and the employee has worked for the employer for at least 120 hours in the part of the period prior to the cessation of employment, the employer must pay an extra day's pay in respect of the public holiday. There is no obvious equivalent to the 120 hour requirement for regular part-time employees. Instead, the Bill provides that they must have worked during at least four of the five weeks prior to the cessation of employment in order to qualify. This four week requirement for regular part-time employees imposes a similar obligation to the 120 hour requirement in the 1973 Act.
Section 4 (3) (f) also changes a provision in the 1973 Act part of the wording of which is not appropriate in relation to regular part-time employees. Section 6 (3) (b) of the 1973 Act provides that payment for annual leave should be "at the normal weekly rate of remuneration". However, as regular part-time employees are to be granted annual leave at the rate of six hours per 100 hours worked, this Bill provides that they be remunerated "at a rate which is proportionate to the normal weekly rate of remuneration". The concept of the "normal weekly rate of remuneration" is well established in the 1973 Act and was, therefore, retained as the general basis on which payment will be determined for regular part-time employees in this Bill.
Section 4 (4) provides that nothing in this Bill shall have the effect of granting retrospective entitlement to annual leave or public holidays prior to the commencement date of the Bill in relation to the holidays provisions. The reason for introducing this provision is to prevent part-time employees claiming on the commencement date a retrospective entitlement for holidays. Such a retrospective entitlement would impose a severe cost burden on certain employers.
Section 5 of the Bill provides for referral to the Employment Appeals Tribunal of any dispute relating to the 13 weeks continuous service and the eight hours a week required to qualify as a regular part-time employee. This is something entirely separate from disputes relating to periods of service required under, for example, the Unfair Dismissals Act or the Redundancy Payments Acts, which, as far as concerns regular part-time workers, will continue to be resolved under the mechanisms which are already used to resolve these disputes for employees qualified under the individual Acts. This is a fair and equitable way of dealing with disputes in relation to the service of part-timers and it will allow the Employment Appeals Tribunal to examine the specific circumstances of any particular dispute as to whether the employee was a regular part-time employee for the purposes of this Bill.
Section 6 simply deals with the regulations which will control how these disputes are referred to and considered by the tribunal. The remaining sections of the Bill are standard.
The Bill represents a major social advancement through the extension of the whole body of protective labour law and individual employment rights to a substantial category of employees who, heretofore, were vulnerable and increasingly subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. The good employer has nothing to fear from this legislation. It simply extends the rights already enjoyed by the vast majority of employees to this rather marginalised group. As a well balanced and progressive response to the needs of these employees, I commend the Bill to this House.