Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997

SECTION 18.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 24a.

In page 17, subsection (1)(c), line 7, to delete "so." and substitute the following:

"so

and the said requirement is not one that is held to arise by virtue of the fact, if such be the case, of the employer having engaged the employee to do work of a casual nature for him or her on occasions prior to the said week (whether or not the number of those occasions or the circumstances otherwise touching the said engagement of the employee are such as to give rise to a reasonable expectation on his or her part that he or she would be required by the employer to do work for the employer in the said week).".

This section covers zero hour contracts. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify to whom the zero contract provision applies. It applies to employees who are required to be available at specified hours on call for their employer. It does not extend to casual employees who have no contractual entitlement to be offered work and no contractual obligation to be available for work. Examples might include the hotel sector where staff may be available on call for functions but are not obliged to hold themselves ready in the same for, for example, as the staff of Dunnes Stores who were on zero hour contracts. In such situations casual staff are not entitled to compensations: if there are no functions they are not called on to work. The purpose of section 18 is to protect those employees who are required by contract to make themselves available to an employer without the guarantee of any work.

Mr. T. Kitt

This sector of the employment force is vulnerable and I am anxious that we do not row back on provisions for it. We need to provide the maximum amount of protection for this sector. As legislators we should concentrate on providing the maximum amount of protection for this group. We should endeavour to provide compensation where necessary and appropriate. We should be clear about making zero hour contracts illegal. I understand from MANDATE that clarification was provide by officials from the Minister of State's Department that zero hour contracts would not be made illegal under this legislation. Given the new national agreement that is being implemented we need to concentrate on part-time and casual workers to ensure they are not discriminated against and that they get the protection afforded to other employees.

Ms Harney

I welcome the amendment. It deals with the problems in the hotel and catering industries. The Irish Hotels Federation may have sought such a change. It is realistic and practical, given the nature of work in that sector.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 18, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) The reference in subsection (2)(b) to the hours for which work of the type referred to in that provision has been done in the week concerned shall be construed as a reference to the number of hours of such work done in that week by another employee of the employer concerned or, in case that employer has required 2 or more employees to do such work for him or her in that week and the number of hours of such work done by each of them in that week is not identical, whichever number of hours of such work done by one of those employees in that week is the greatest.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Kitt

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 18, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsections:

"(4) (a) It shall be unlawful for an employer to require the attendance of an employee at his place of work for the purpose of work without providing that employee either—

(i) work on that day for a continuous period of not less than 3 hours, or

(ii) remuneration in lieu of the above.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), an employee may waive his rights under this subsection by a written consent agreement with his employer but the said consent should not be a condition of his employment.".

Ms E. Fitzgerald

We have discussed this section with MANDATE and it now accepts that it does what it is intended to do. It effectively outlaws zero hour contracts. There will be no zero contracts because those who hold such contracts must be paid regardless of whether they are called for work. That effectively deals with the problem. It is not about how it is labelled but what is done. That position is now accepted by MANDATE.

Deputy Kitt's amendment provides for a minimum number of hours per day. We have dealt with that by provides for minimum number of hours per week. If workers were obliged to be available every day of the week it would affect many casual workers, about whom Deputy Kitt is concerned, who might never be rostered to work five days every week, particularly in the retail trade. They could, for example, be asked to work the busy days of Thursday, Friday and Saturday but would also have to make themselves available for work for the rest of week, although they would have no guarantee of being given work on those days. The section, as drafted, addresses these concerns. None of the submissions sought a minimum hours per day basis. Therefore, Deputy Kitt's amendment is redundant.

Mr. T. Kitt

The purpose of this amendment was to provide greater clarity. I ask the Minister of State to look at it again for Report Stage. Its purposes is to strengthen this section but the Minister of State is saying that is not necessary.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

My understanding is that MANDATE also accepts it is not necessary. I accept the Deputy's point that the language might be a little untidy and we will try to look at that before Report Stage. I had a long discussion with MANDATE on this and I am satisfied that the section, as drafted, meets the concerns expressed and that it will do the job for which it was intended.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.