I wish to share my time with Deputy Martin Cullen.
Private Members' Business. - Protection of Workers (Shops) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.
I am sure that is in order and agreed.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I have heard in the past few hours that the Government has accepted the Bill on which we have been working for some time. This is a victory for workers in the retail sector. It is an opportune time for the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, to table legislation.
Traditionally, the opening of retail stores on Sundays was largely confined to newsagents, small grocery and neighbourhood shops. Since the early 1980s high street retailers, suburban centres and small independent supermarkets have commenced trading on Sundays. During the 1980s and the early 1990s supermarket chains such as Dunnes Stores and Quinnsworth confined their Sunday trading to the period immediately prior to Christmas. Department stores such as Arnotts and Switzers also confined their Sunday openings to the Christmas season. In the summer of 1994, however, Dunnes Stores and Marks and Spencers opened their doors to the public on Sundays in Grafton Street, Dublin. Others have followed suit. Given the current trend, it is conceivable that Sunday will become a normal shopping day in the near future.
The recent ruling by the European Court on the UK challenge to the EU working time directive means that Sunday is no different from any other day. In recent years the increasing commercialisation of Sunday and changing lifestyles have placed shop workers under pressure to work on Sunday which, traditionally, has been a day of rest and a family day. A worrying free-for-all has developed, as highlighted by the recent decision of some retail stores to open on Easter Sunday. This development met with an understandable negative reaction from a large section of the public, small retail outlets and the trade union movement representing retail shop workers. The continuance of the present trend is detrimental to the creation of well paid, secure jobs, both full-time and part-time, in the retail sector. The increasing casualisation of the trade in the absence of legislation will consign a further generation of workers, usually young females, to the uncertainty of temporary and casual employment for the foreseeable future. The broader issue of controlling and regulating Sunday trading is complex. My party has been examining how best to deal with it taking account of what is happening in other EU member states.
This is a labour protection measure. When it becomes law, protection will be provided for those employed in retail outlets which trade on Sundays so that Sunday working will be optional as opposed to obligatory for those employees. The Bill will go some way towards bringing the level of protection here for Sunday working into line with the level among our European partners and provide some regulation of employment on what, traditionally, has been workers' one day off each week.
It is regrettable, despite promises made by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, that until tonight both he and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, have been sitting on their hands, reneging on commitments to provide the necessary legal protection for employees in this sector. The Government, which claims to be concerned about workers' rights, has turned its back on thousands of workers in this sector who under existing legislation are obliged to work on Sundays and, only under extreme pressure from Fianna Fáil, has finally agreed to this necessary legislative proposal.
The legislation is drafted with a view to balancing the rights of employees while at the same time allowing employers sufficient flexibility to run their businesses efficiently and without undue constraint. It will not apply to a relative of the proprietor or owner of a shop and allows the Minister to make regulations under any section to ensure small corner shops, etc., are not affected. It is the united view of all the Members of the House that the corner shop should be protected. This point has been made time and again, especially by those who represent rural constituencies.
The main provisions of the Bill are: a shop worker will not be obliged to work on a Sunday without his or her consent; an employee who works on a Sunday will be paid no less than time and a half; for those employees who opt to work on a Sunday the employer shall give the employee notice of the work schedule not less than four days before any Sunday — this aspect of the Bill deals with the unacceptable use of zero hour contracts where workers are given little or no notice in relation to working time. I am delighted that MANDATE and RGDATA representing small shop owners have welcomed the Bill.
Sunday working in the retail sector is synonymous with casualisation in the workplace. The Bill gives us an opportunity, as legislators, to put down a marker in relation to the dangerous drift towards casualisation and part-time employment. MANDATE, which represents the vast majority of retail workers, rejected the new partnership agreement because it failed to deliver on the issues of low pay and increased casualisation. With 12 per cent of workers employed in the retail sector, a lowering of standards in that sector will in the long term lead to a lowering of standards for all workers.
The majority of shop workers are female and many of them are married. Figures show that at the end of 1994 45 per cent of those employed in shops worked on a part-time basis. This compares with the European average of 26 per cent. The Bill will provide a considerable degree of protection for these workers in terms of Sunday work. Given the massive invasion of multinational retailers, it is clear that such legislation must be enacted as a matter of urgency. I hope the Government follows through on this legislation and ensures that this is done.
In its submission to the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy on the working time legislation, MANDATE stated:
When Sean Lemass was introducing the 1938 Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act in the Dáil he stated that the whole purpose of employment legislation was to institute machinery in relation to occupations where exploitation of labour might occur, for the regulation of working conditions which would prevent abuses and which would enable the State to exercise a general supervision over those conditions of employment. Sixty years later in the retail trade in Ireland Lemass's sentiments are just as relevant for Irish shop workers.
From the days of Seán Lemass to the present day Fianna Fáil has continually provided for workers' protective legislation where it is required. This Bill, which has the support of MANDATE, is in line with my party's historical solidarity with workers since the foundation of the State.
The public utterances of the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, on this issue are worthy of comment. Having been centrally involved in the complex debate on Sunday trading over the past two years, I share the Minister of State's view that Dunnes Stores and other major retail outlets should not trade on Easter Sunday. However, I am deeply suspicious and sceptical about his inap- propriate and ill-informed intervention in this debate. If he was genuinely concerned about workers' rights in the context of Sunday work why did he not intervene to ensure that a Fianna Fáil amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Bill was given serious consideration? This amendment would have allowed shop workers in the retail sector to opt out of Sunday work. I do not recall any comment by the Minister of State at the time of that debate.
Last week on "Morning Ireland" the Minister of State conceded that the multifaceted issue of Sunday trading was complex. He further suggested in his usual cavalier manner that I should apply my ample brain to devising a solution to this problem. This off-the-top-of-the-head comment again shows his ignorance of the true position. This Bill was published some months ago and has been on the Order Paper since then. The reality is that when it comes to matters ample the Minister of State wins the rosette for the most ample neck in this House. He consistently presents himself as a person of superior knowledge who has all the answers, yet like a cowboy he came galloping into town last week Clint Eastwood style and rode roughshod over the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, who has responsibility for labour affairs and who had told me for two years that nothing could be done to protect Sunday workers in the retail sector. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, agrees with me that something can be done about this issue and I have given him the means to resolve this ongoing problem.
This hijacking of the labour affairs portfolio is another opportunistic solo run by the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology, Deputy Rabbitte. Does it not demonstrate that at Cabinet the high chair Minister now sits on the throne? Public pronouncements about Government cohesion, responsibility and partnership belie the true position, particularly in the Department of Enterprise and Employment, where annoyance, jealousy, jostling and confusion reign. During the short period they have left in office the three Ministers involved should get their act together and give a measured and coherent response to this Bill.
I wish to deal with the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 excludes hotels and pubs from the provisions of the legislation and defines "shops", "relative", "employee", etc. Section 3 excludes a relative of the proprietor or owner of a shop from the provisions of the Bill. This provision and section 11 have been included in the Bill to allow for the exclusion of genuine family businesses, corner shops, etc. Section 4 contains the main provisions of the Bill and provides that an employee shall not be obliged to work on a Sunday without his or her consent. The Bill clearly allows employees to consent to work on Sundays if they so choose. The provision of this voluntary opt-out from Sunday work which is available to retail workers in the United Kingdom will meet one of the key demands of the MANDATE trade union which represents the vast majority of workers in this sector. This is a basic demand and should be provided for in legislation without delay.
Section 5 prohibits discrimination against an employee who does not wish to work on Sunday for religious, family or other reasons. Section 6 recognises Sunday work as exceptional and different and provides for pay for those who engage in such work of not less than time and a half. It also provides for corresponding holiday entitlements. Under section 7 an employer will give an employee notice of the option to work not less than four days before any one Sunday. There will also be obligations on the employee to give an employer not less than three days notice of his non-availability to work the following Sunday; otherwise the employer may assume consent is being freely given. The Bill is very carefully balanced in terms of the obligations on employers and employees.
Section 9 allows aggrieved employees to apply to the rights commissioner if they believe their rights under the legislation have been breached. The rights commissioner may order the offending employer to pay the employee a maximum of ten weeks salary. Under section 11 the Minister may make regulations in relation to any section of the Bill or may, by order, suspend the operation of the Bill in particular circumstances. This section gives protection to small shop outlets and retailers within a defined geographical area, taking account of seasonal variations.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to introduce this Private Members' Bill on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is an honour to be given the opportunity to do this. I sincerely thank all the people who helped me in carrying out research and drafting the Bill. If a Bill is to be accepted by the Government it must be framed in the correct way, and this legislation has been drafted after careful and lengthy consultation with all those involved in the retail sector. The Bill may not please everyone but I know it pleases those who represent the workers in this sector.
The Bill was published last November and launched at a press conference attended by my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and deputy party leader, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, our spokesperson on enterprise and employment. It is specifically focused on protecting workers in the retail sector. As legislators, we have a duty to bring to an end the exploitation of those workers who are forced to work on Sundays. The Bill addresses this specific issue.
Each member state has its own way of dealing with this issue. Many European countries do not allow Sunday trading in the retail sector for historic, cultural or religious reasons. There were many debates on this controversial issue in the UK and legislation was passed in 1994. The British Government first published a White Paper on this issue and perhaps we should consider such an approach in dealing with the broader issue of Sunday trading. The Fianna Fáil Party is carrying out a detailed study of the broader issue of Sunday trading. I have not only consulted my colleagues in the parliamentary party and the various sectors on this issue but have also asked members of local authorities to submit their views to me. It is important that we get it right when dealing with an issue like this and it is most important to consult with local authorities which have experience of what is happening on the ground and know what is right for their communities.
Many Government Deputies share my concern about the need to grant employees the choice in law to opt out of Sunday work. For that reason I welcome the Government's support for the Bill. We are showing solidarity with the thousands of workers who have rightly sought action from their legislators, not promises. Workers have won tonight.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government would be accepting the Bill, but there were a few issues I wanted to raise tonight and I was pleased to have the opportunity to do so.
I thank my colleague for sharing time with me. This is the second week in a row I have followed one of my party's spokespersons introducing a Bill which the Government has rightly seen fit to accept. It raises an interesting question as to who is actually delivering the raft of legislation in this House. In the ten years I have been a Member, excluding a short period in the other Chamber, I have never seen so much Private Members' legislation accepted by Government. It is a testament to the fact that Fianna Fáil has its finger on the pulse of the nation rather than the Government. If the Government had done what it should have been doing over the past number of months, in a wide range of areas, it would not be accepting well drafted, up to the minute legislation from Fianna Fáil. One can at least say the Government had the foresight to realise the difficulties it faces would be further compounded if it did not accept this legislation.
In observing the contributions of Fianna Fáil Members who have introduced legislation in the House over the past number of months, from my colleague, Deputy O'Donoghue, in the justice area to Deputy Kitt on labour affairs, it is clear that both the Labour Party and Democratic Left are best at raising public concern and making us aware of the problems the country is facing, but they fall short when it comes to drafting legislation to address those problems. Any neutral observer of the proceedings of this House could easily come to such a conclusion.
A question that has puzzled me for a long time concerns the advisers, programme managers and various other relations. What are they doing at the behest of the State and the taxpayer to deliver in this area? We have an excellent Civil Service. When Fianna Fáil was in Government, it drafted its programme managers from the Civil Service in all but one case, and rightly so, but this Government changed that position. We were led to believe there was no expertise available in regard to the openness and transparency the Government intended to deliver. What are all those people in the pay of the State supposed to be doing? I meet them every day walking up and down the corridors of Leinster House talking on their mobile phones.
Over the past months Fianna Fáil dedicated itself to producing legislation on relevant issues which the Government had to accept because it had no other choice. The days of prevarication were over and it had to face up to its responsibilities.
This excellent Bill introduced by Deputy Kitt did not come out of thin air. Fianna Fáil does not draft legislation on the hoof. This legislation has been ready for some months and has been enunciated by my colleague, Deputy Kitt, on a number of occasions, as has other legislation produced by my party. Fianna Fáil is not interested in producing rabbits out of the hat, a hallmark of this Government. Legislation produced by my party is so well drafted and thought out that the Government must accept it.
As my colleague rightly pointed out, the question of Sunday trading is a difficult one. The Government decided to accept my colleague's Bill because of the spectre of Easter Sunday trading, which no Deputy in this House or the vast majority of people would like to see introduced. I subscribe to that view.
I listened with great interest to the debate on the Organisation of Working Time Bill, during which issues before us this evening were addressed by Fianna Fáil Deputies. They were laughed at by members of the Government who could not find their way to introduce legislation dealing with the right of any worker to opt out of working on Sunday if they so wished. We were told, in effect, that it could not be done because there were constitutional implications. Whenever there is a difficulty with legislation, the question of the Constitution is raised and we cannot move forward. We now know that is not the case because the Government has seen the light of day in regard to this Bill. It realises that hiding behind the Constitution is unacceptable to workers, trade unions such as MANDATE and RGDATA, which represents a large number of small, family run businesses.
This Bill will enshrine in law, for the first time, the right of workers to refuse to work on Sundays, something that is long overdue, and I commend my colleague for introducing it. As a family man, like most Members of this House, I am aware of the difficulty in balancing legitimate commercial operations required on an ongoing basis to sustain a large or small business with the needs of our society, which is under enormous pressure, particularly in terms of the family. I suspect we will be back in this House in less than a decade reviewing the question of Sunday trading.
Denmark has often been mentioned in this House in terms of what it has and has not achieved. As Members will be aware, I have a reasonable knowledge of that country as my wife is Danish. I was interested to discover on my last visit to Denmark that the shops close at 1 p.m. on Saturdays. I am not referring to major cities like Copenhagen, but rural Denmark has decided that the family must come first and that there is more to life than the merry-go-round of excess commercialism.
It is interesting that the party that was supposed to be economically and financially so far ahead of everybody else is beginning to review many of the decisions taken in the 1980s, not least the raft of "politically correct" social legislation. In the context of this evening's debate it is worth nothing that the trend is beginning to change. I welcome that, if we as a society are to live normal lives instead of stressed out lives. People in every walk of life are subject to stress, whether they work on the factory floor or in an executive office. There is pressure to deliver, to pay the mortgage, to buy the latest labels for the children, be they Manchester United shirts or Nike shoes. We are all under pressure. I know it as a father of four young children. The time is coming when we will have to review where Ireland as a society wants to go in the future.
Part-time working is a legitimate and worthwhile entry to employment. It is positive and it allows working mothers particularly access to employment which it would not be possible for them to undertake on a full-time basis. In this context I will not say that part-time working is a bad thing. However, there is a danger that has been evident in many of the multiples where young women constitute the greatest numbers in employment, that the move to part-time working will be seen by many employers as a way to negate their responsibilities to employees, to cut corners, cut costs, worsen conditions and cut pensions. Part-time working is a valuable contribution, but we need to ensure that employers do not use it as a way of negating their responsibilities. There is evidence of such a trend having begun to gain momentum in some quarters. A distinction must be made between the use and abuse of part-time workers. Many businesses can benefit greatly and create a greater pool of employment from employing workers on a part-time basis. The benefits cut both ways. There are benefits to employees and to employers.
My colleague's Bill provides that if workers give their consent to work on a Sunday they must be rewarded, and we are talking about a minimum of time and a half for Sunday working. This brings me to something that is dear to my heart. Within the taxation system we must take every opportunity to tilt the balance in favour of people who want to work by ensuring that business is competitive. The draconian tax on labour is a testament to the present Government. After three budgets, the contribution of Labour, Democratic Left and Fine Gael to the PAYE sector was one paltry penny.
There were cuts in PRSI.
From 1987 to 1984 when things were at their most difficult, Fianna Fáil-led Governments reduced taxation from 58 per cent to 48 per cent at the high rate and from 35 per cent to 28 per cent at the low rate. Fianna Fáil has always had the capacity to recognise work and worth and the right of people to employment. The expectation of work is the legitimate right of any young man or woman and there is a range of options which include part-time working, job sharing and full-time working. The taxation system should not penalise an enterprise culture because it is not something which belongs to a business but is in the heart of an individual; it is what we give our children coming out of school into employment or into third level education, and if we kill that spirit society will be the loser. It is vital to facilitate all types of access to employment not just in theory but in reality.
I admire the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, for coming into the House this evening. One would have thought, given the recent performance of the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, that Deputy Fitzgerald had left the country. The Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology acted as Minister for Labour Affairs and Minister for Finance. Deputy Richard Bruton must be wondering who the Minister for Enterprise and Employment is. The public perception is that the man wearing all the hats, the Jack of all trades, Deputy Rabbitte, is the man who seems able to comment on everything that goes on in society. However, he has been irresponsible, because what he put on the record in the past few weeks has now proved to be incorrect. Deputy Rabbitte challenged my colleague, Deputy Kitt, to put up or shut up. We saw and raised him, as would any good poker player. Where are Deputy Rabbitte and the other Democratic Left Deputies this evening? Not one of them is here. The great party that loves to tell the workers how well it looks after them has not the interest to come into the House and listen to what is going on. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, for having the gumption to come in after the treatment she has been given by her colleague in Government. It was a shameful performance that brought no credit on him or on the Government, but it will come as no surprise to any Member of this House or to anybody observing what has been going on in the House over the past few weeks.
I commend my colleague warmly for introducing this Bill. I acknowledge the Government's reluctant acceptance. As the legislation being introduced in the House is now almost exclusively introduced by Fianna Fáil, it follows that Fianna Fáil must be returned to Government. We are ready and are demonstrating that we can deliver when push comes to shove.
I apologise for not being in the House earlier to hear Deputy Kitt's contribution — I spoke to him privately about this matter — but I was dealing with Labour Party legislation in Committee, the Freedom of Information Bill, with which, in 47 years of Fianna Fáil Government, that party chose not to proceed. In the seven glorious years to which Deputy Cullen referred, no legislation was introduced in this area.
I did not say none.
I have made substantial progress in working conditions in the Organisation of Working Time Bill, which radically modernises working conditions and outlines a framework of workers' rights appropriate to the 21st century. Deputy Cullen also referred to job creation. I remind him that when he was a Progressive Democrats Deputy the country lost 47 jobs per day under the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley.
Unfortunately, I was not in the House at that time.
Since the Labour Party came to office in 1993 we created 150,000 additional jobs and cut PRSI for the low paid, unlike the cuts for the high paid, with which Deputy Cullen is more concerned. That has contributed to job creation and shows our commitment to the low paid. This Administration has cut taxes on labour.
I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of Sunday working. Deputy Kitt, in this Bill, is seeking to improve the conditions of employment of shop workers by giving them a right to say no to Sunday working. I fully support meaningful measures to improve the conditions of shop workers and combat exploitative practices. In my legislation I sought to address this matter in a practical way. There is, however, a measure of opportunism in the timing of the Bill as many of its features have already been dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the Government's Organisation of Working Time Bill which is due for Report Stage in the next two weeks. Notwithstanding this, I will not oppose the reference of this Bill to Committee. Many of the provisions of the Bill might be examined more closely and might benefit from further consultations with the social partners and other interested groups, but these issues can be dealt with during the next Stage of the Bill.
There has been some confusion about the issues involved in the opening hours of shops and the rights of employees. It has always been my intention — I have been working on this matter for the past two years — as Minister with responsibility for labour affairs to ensure that the rights of employees are protected. A number of provisions in the Organisation of Working Time Bill provide for that and I will outline them in a moment. The advice I received from the Attorney General clearly indicates it would not be possible to ban Sunday opening for large shops and not others. Any such rules would be unsafe from a constitutional point of view as it would be open to challenge on the grounds of invidious discrimination, irrationality or lack of proportionality. Closing shops on Sunday is, therefore, not being considered in the context of addressing the Sunday working issue. I have explained that at length at many meetings with MANDATE and others involved in the trade union movement. Although that is often a very simple demand, constitutionally it is not acceptable. There is no demand to close corner shops and small shops in rural areas where people can buy a loaf of bread or a few cooking apples on a Sunday when they have unexpected visitors. We cannot provide that shops such as Dunnes Stores should close on Sundays without also closing those outlets which provide a much needed and valued service.
The Organisation of Working Time Bill provides that every employee is entitled to one day off per week, which must be Sunday unless Sunday working is specified in the employee's contract of employment. What this means is that employees whose contracts of employment do not specify Sunday working are already protected in the Organisation of Working Time Bill. Unless a contract of employment states that a person must work on Sunday, Sunday working is voluntary under the terms of this Bill. If the employee is required to work on Sunday he or she must be rewarded with a Sunday premium unless Sunday working is otherwise built into the pay structure, such as a shift premium for those working on a rotating shift.
It is important to underscore the background to the approach adopted in the Organisation of Working Time Bill to the issue of Sunday working which has always been a feature in a broad range of sectors. Public utilities, health care — our hospitals could not operate without Sunday working — media and entertainment, hotels and catering, security, and agriculture are just some of the sectors where employment includes Sunday working. In the leisure sector, Sunday is the busiest day. In recent years the numbers working on Sundays and the sectors in which Sunday working is now commonplace have been increasing. Continuous processing and round-the-clock production are now typical features of our major industries where cost and competitive pressures require the optimum use of all resources. This has resulted in increased operating time for many industries. The number of employees working on Sundays in manufacturing and in commerce generally has increased by 20 per cent in the past three years alone. A total of 36 per cent of the labour force now work on sundays.
Sunday working is already recognised as premium time in many employments and is typically rewarded by an overtime rate or shift premium. Rates of pay for Sunday work within the joint labour committee system provide for premium pay for Sunday work in many sectors. The Labour Court in its adjudication on the issue of Sunday working has also recommended premium rates for Sunday working in recent cases. Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Bill is designed to put this accepted feature of rewarding work done on Sunday at a premium rate on a statutory footing for all employees, whether covered by a unionised agreement or a joint labour committee, or where there is no protection. This applies to all employees, not simply those who are rostered for occasional Sunday working. If a person works only on Sundays, under the Organisation of Working Time Bill they are entitled to a Sunday premium.
Sunday working is clearly a growing trend and figures suggest that seven day opening and seven day production will be a feature of many more employments. With this legislation we now have the proper statutory protection for employees who work on Sunday and legislation which responds comprehensively to trends and working patterns. Ensuring that Sunday work is rewarded at the appropriate level for all employees responds fairly to the issue of Sunday working.
The Organisation of Working Time Bill is modelled closely on the European Working Time Directive, but the European Court found that the Sunday provisions of the directive were not compatible with health and safety measures. Notwithstanding that, considerable provisions have been agreed for Sunday working, which is voluntary for people whose contract of employment does not specify they must work on Sundays — that covers the vast majority of existing shop workers. Sunday working must be rewarded at a premium rate or by premium time off if it is not already rewarded through a bonus system. I am addressing fairly the issue of Sunday working. Under the Bill Sunday must be included in the 35 hours weekly rest to which employees are entitled unless otherwise provided for in the contract of employment. These are very fair provisions which go well beyond the terms of the European directive.
Before responding in detail to Deputy Kitt's Bill, I want to outline to the House some of the significant changes which I recently introduced to improve the position of employees in general. Those will be of particular benefit to shop workers, many of whom are part-time, young workers, women workers and unorganised. In addition to those represented by unions such as MANDATE and SIPTU, we must remember that thousands of workers in one and two person establishments are not in a union and do not have any bargaining power. The Department of Enterprise and Employment has a duty to set minimum conditions for those people.
Those who stand to benefit significantly under the Government's Bill are part time, casual and atypical workers, some of whom had no rights up to now to, for example, holiday pay. In addition to the obligatory day of rest per week and the Sunday premium, the major improvements in workers' rights include holiday pay for all, including part-time workers, reduced qualifying period for public holiday pay, advance information on hours of work, regulation of zero hour contracts, which will effectively end those contracts, easier enforcement, tougher penalties on employers who break the law and a one-stop-shop where people can go with claims — at present holiday claims have to go to the District Court. We are providing that people can take a bundle of claims to the rights commissioner, the Labour Court or, if taken with Employment Appeals Tribunal claims, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
It is a popular argument that the adaptation to change necessary to survive and compete in an increasingly globalised economy requires a willingness on all sides to accept the importance of increased working time flexibility. However, we cannot demand flexibility unless workers are properly protected. Flexibility must be matched by a floor of rights for workers to safeguard against exploitation or capricious behaviour by employers. We cannot legislate against bad management but we can, I hope, ensure a basic floor of rights for workers through working time legislation and demonstrate to employers that respecting employees' basic rights makes good business sense. A badly treated employee will not be as productive as an employee who is treated with dignity.
Report Stage of the Organisation of Working Time Bill will be taken shortly in the Dáil. The Bill was drafted following one of the most comprehensive consultative processes ever undertaken in the preparation of legislation. We met approximately 110 groups and I have held five or six meetings with MANDATE, the most recent of which lasted two and a half hours. That legislation brings our laws on worker protection into the 21st century. It places concerns for workers' safety and health at the heart of how work is organised. It gives workers a legal right to minimum daily and weekly rest and adequate rest breaks during the working day.
Existing legislation in this area dates from the 1930s. The Organisation of Working Time Bill repeals seven Bills dealing with the conditions of employment applicable to various sectors and replaces them with generally applicable legislation. The practical effect of this is that employers and employees can now refer to one consolidated Act instead of seven Acts or 137 pages of primary legislation and hundreds of regulations, orders and licences. It is time the protections available to employees reflected the modern world of work. The overall effect of that legislation will greatly simplify and clarify the rights and obligations of employers and workers. It is an updated and modern approach to conditions of employment.
Some of the features of the new legislation will provide significantly greater protection for shop workers and other employees. The new legislation will repeal and improve existing legislation on holidays. While the most obvious improvement in holiday entitlements for employees is the increase from 15 to 20 days per annum, an equally significant improvement for part-time and contract workers and those on very short contracts is the pro rata increase in their holiday entitlements. The increase in holiday entitlements will begin this year.
The participation rate for part-time employees has increased from 8.5 per cent to 13.8 per cent in the past eight years. With such increasing numbers of part-time and atypical workers in the economy, particularly in the retail sector, it is very important that their work earns an entitlement to holidays. Under the new working time legislation, all employees, regardless of hours worked, will be entitled to holidays. The principle that holidays are earned against time worked will apply to everyone. Up to now a threshold of eight hours per week applied. For example, people packing bags in a shop for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon were not entitled to holidays. Under the Organisation of Working Time Bill people will be entitled to holidays on a pro rata basis, irrespective of the hours they work. Another significant feature of the new holiday arrangements will be that an employer must take family circumstances into account in the timing of annual leave. This is the first time we have reconciled family and working life in law.
In a further recognition of the way in which the workplace has changed since the legislation on holidays was enacted in 1973, the qualifying period for a public holiday is reduced to 40 hours in the five weeks immediately preceding the public holiday. This provision will bring public holiday entitlements to a range of part-time and atypical workers who would not have benefited prior to this because of their working arrangements. For example, those who work on Mondays lose out because most bank holidays fall on a Monday.
Another significant protection feature of the Organisation of Working Time Bill, which goes beyond what is required by the EU directive, is the new regulation on zero hour contracts and the entitlement of an employee to advance information on working hours. Recent labour force survey figures show an increase in part-time and atypical working. The demands of business dictate working patterns that are no longer based on our traditional view of regular working hours or the full-time job. I am also conscious that there is a demand from some workers for part-time and atypical work to match their personal circumstances. Labour force survey figures suggest that most part-time workers do not want full-time work.
Unfortunately the development towards greater flexibility has led to some disturbing practices. Zero hour contracts have all the characteristics of the old hiring fair. Employees should not have to make themselves available without receiving money. Being at the beck and call of an employer is unacceptable in this day and age. Workers must be able to plan ahead for their working hours, family and child care arrangements, social life and income. For the first time in legislation, zero hour contracts will effectively be banned and, in a further improvement for workers, employers will be required to give advance notice of working hours. In other words, people who work Monday to Friday should be told their working hours for the following week on the previous Thursday evening. This is an important right for employees and it will ensure that workers are not left hanging around waiting for a telephone call from their employers. It should improve the quality of life by enabling workers to better plan and organise their working life. These initiatives are an important response to demands from the MANDATE trade union and others in the aftermath of the Dunnes Stores dispute. They ensure the development of new working arrangements will not take place at the expense of the worker.
A primary objective of the proposed new legislation is that it should be enforced in a manner that is familiar to both workers and employers, that such enforcement should be informal and cost effective and provide speedy determinations. For those reasons, we have adopted a new approach to the enforcement of these new statutory rights and have given an expanded role to the Labour Court. Both the court and the rights commissioners are familiar to the parties and will, I am confident, provide a speedy and cost effective service to resolve problems or disputes without either of the parties having to resort to formal legal proceedings. The rights commissioners and the Labour Court have traditionally dealt with disputes relating to working time and are best placed to deal with disputes under the working time legislation.
The Department's labour inspectorate will be given wide-ranging powers under the legislation to inspect records and respond to complaints. The inspectors will also be able to follow up complaints on behalf of employees who would not be in a position to take up complaints on their own behalf. This provision was specifically introduced to deal with unrepresented and vulnerable workers who, for various reasons, would not be in a strong enough position to proceed with a complaint. It is reasonable to presume that some shop workers would be in this category, particularly non-unionised workers working in small corner shops.
A number of proposals at EU level deal with the issue of atypical work and we are monitoring progress closely. The UK vetoed provisions on part-time work and this is being addressed under the social Protocol by European employers and trade unions. We must allow the potential of the employment market to be fully realised while simultaneously affording basic rights to all workers employed on a regular basis. The most balanced approach is to ensure that standard workers and non-standard workers have the same legislative entitlements. Progress is being made on this matter in Brussels.
We have made considerable progress in meeting the needs of shop workers under the Organisation of Working Time Bill. Under that Bill people will not be obliged to work on Sundays if it is not in their contract of employment. The Bill also provides for a Sunday premium, which is set by reference to the going rate, for increased holiday entitlements and it outlaws zero hour contracts. Deputy Kitt will be aware that the 1938 legislation, which will be repealed by the Organisation of Working Time Bill, provides that three women working behind a counter are entitled to share one chair. I have already signed regulations under the health and safety rules providing for a gender neutral rule in that regard. Irrespective of how many people work behind a counter, they have a legal right to sit down if the work can be done from a sitting position. I have written to all the major chain stores, RGDATA and shop workers' unions in that regard. It is not acceptable that a person at a cash point should be expected to stand all day given the disadvantages to their health. This is a progressive step forward and of practical benefit to shop workers, many of whom suffer from varicose veins and other health problems because they are forced to stand although the job does not require it.
The Organisation of Working Time Bill deals in a practical way with a number of the concerns which affect shop workers as well as other groups of employees. It reflects the unprecedented level of consultation with the social partners and other interested parties. I am concerned there has not been sufficient consideration of the implications of the measures proposed by Deputy Kitt and that the views of the social partners and other interested groups on his proposals have not been sought. The Deputy's Bill is at best a partial response to a complex issue and at worst an exercise in opportunism, although I would not accuse my constituency colleague of such a heinous crime.
I find it hard to attack the Minister of State.
How voluntary is the opt-out proposed? Deputy Kitt will be aware of my overall scepticism about opt-outs, particularly for those working in small businesses. While there is popular appeal in opt-outs, more complex interests and considerations arise. One must ask how voluntary could an opt-out be if an employee was only offered Sunday work and little other work for the rest of the week. How can an employee bargain on his or her own from a position of relative weakness, particularly if they have no union and are one of two or three employees in a small shop in a town? As legislators, we must consider the realities and complexities of legislating for the employment relationship in circumstances where there is an unequal relationship and one might be better served by better protections in the area of industrial relations.
This is an area to which the Deputy would need to give further consideration. For example, what would be the implications for existing collective agreements which provide for Sunday working? There could be industrial relations problems if Sunday working becomes voluntary for certain people despite well established agreements. I draw the Deputy's attention to the formula used in the Organisation of Working Time Bill where the limited individual opt-out to the 48-hour week over a two year phase in period is safe-guarded through the collective agreement process and by giving a role to the Labour Court in vetting not only the health and safety aspects but also the voluntary nature of any agreement. We need to consider whether voluntary work is voluntary. These precise measures may not be appropriate in these circumstances but no consideration appears to have been given to the need for such protections by Deputy Kitt. This is one area which needs substantial rethinking before Committee Stage.
Another issue which Deputy Kitt has not thought out in any detail is who should be covered by the legislation. Should the Sunday opt-out be available to those who are employed to work on Sunday only? If an employee agrees to work Sundays only, the opt-out would make a nonsense of the contract of employment. Should the opt-out apply to all shops? What would be the effect on the corner shop which has traditionally operated Sunday working? What would happen in rural areas if such shops were to close? Much consultation and discussion is needed to tease out the practical implications of what is proposed. The Deputy would not wish to close all shops and retail outlets, such as garden centres and places of entertainment. The views of RGDATA should be sought. We need to know if small shops in rural areas will close because nobody will work on a Sunday. Such discussions should precede the enactment of legislation in this area.
We should also look at issues such as the timing of the opt-out and when it should take effect. Should there be a differentiation between employees employed before and after the opt-out? I looked at UK legislation in this area which is fairly complex and is being reviewed. We need much more detailed study in this area.
Deputy Kitt has not considered the most appropriate mechanism for policing such an arrangement. The criteria should be, as adopted in the Organisation of Working Time Bill, that the mechanism should provide informal, speedy and cost effective settlement while allowing the employment relationship to continue. Deputy Kitt has chosen a more time consuming, complicated and costly method of enforcement. Furthermore, the Deputy's proposals as regards enforcement have the potential to cause irreparable damage to the employment relationship. We must consider what will happen in small shops where the employee may have a personal relationship with the employer. How will the enforcement mechanism work in practice?
Deputy Kitt does not seem to be aware of the joint labour committee for the retail and grocery sector or the fact that a legally binding Sunday premium and overtime rate exists for shop workers in this sector. These rates, which are set out in the Employment Regulation Order for the sector, were arrived at following agreement between both sides of industry and without the need for legislative intervention. This Government supports a partnership approach but this aspect of the Bill could drive a coach and four through existing agreements which are legally binding and working well.
It would be particularly damaging to enshrine in law an overtime rate for Sunday workers which is less than that under the statutory minimum rate for the retail grocery sector. Shop workers would be badly served by enshrining in law a time and a half rate when they are entitled to double time under existing the Employment Regulation Order where Sunday working is worked as overtime. Nobody would welcome a lowering of overtime or premia rates for the sector. The approach we adopted in the Organisation of Working Time Bill where people may go to the Labour Court to seek a determination of the appropriate rate for the job with reference to established agreements in the sector allows flexibility. In law we would end up with the lowest rate but this allows workers to get a higher rate for the job, where appropriate.
A large number of questions need to be considered before legislation on voluntary Sunday working can be enacted. We must ask what are the intended effects of our proposals and if they will be effective in achieving these objectives. Of very real concern is the question of the voluntary nature of any agreement between an employer and employee in these circumstances. We should also ensure the legislation would not have the unwanted effect of disrupting existing collective agreements operating well in relation to Sunday. We also need to look closely at the effects of such measures as closing rural shops as well as other services. We need to receive the views of the social partners who ultimately will have to live with the legislation.
I regard Sunday as a special day and this is evident by the provisions I included in the Organisation of Working Time Bill, which were not required by European law. I have gone further by enshrining in law that employees are entitled to a weekly rest on Sunday unless the contract of employment provides otherwise. These employees already have a right to voluntary Sunday working.
I am aware of the increase in Sunday working, particularly in shops which have increased opening hours dramatically in recent years. While I have no wish to interfere with trading, I am anxious to ensure that more flexible arrangements should not come about at the expense of the worker or his or her rest and family life. It is also clear, and this has been commented on by the Labour Court, that the increase in part-time and atypical working is responding to a demand among some workers for working hours which suit their personal circumstances.
More work needs to be done on Deputy Kitt's Bill but I have no problem in accepting the spirit in which it was put forward and the principle of improving the conditions of employment of employees in the retail trade. I have already taken substantial steps to improve the situation of workers in this sector. Further study and more exploration of the details in the Bill are required. The outcome of these deliberations can be reflected on Committee Stage.
May I share my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister of State referred to what the Labour Party has done in terms of tax reform and job creation. As far as job creation is concerned, she should visit County Donegal and read the figures for that area. Much has to be done and it will take a lot of work on everyone's part to do it.
I welcome the Protection of Workers (Shops) Bill brought to the House by Deputy Tom Kitt. It is heartening that Fianna Fáil's commitment to the workers has culminated in this Bill and I am glad the Government has agreed to accept it in the absence of its own. There has been a trend since 1994 towards the bigger stores opening on Sundays. This impinges on the lives of many people, the employer, the employee and the consumer, and more so than the traditional confinement of Sunday opening to newsagents, small groceries or neighbourhood shops. As it affects many people, it is important it is legislated for in a manner which ensures equity for all and, above all, protection for workers.
The issue of Sunday trading was brought sharply into focus last week when the debate arose on the possibility of stores opening on Easter Sunday. The reaction from many people was considerable and was obviously caused by the religious aspect whereby people want the most important Sunday of the Christian religious calendar maintained, along with Christmas Day, as a special day. There were other reasons for the strength of the reaction and these arise partly from the psychological pressure felt by employers, employees and consumers alike. Once one large chain store made a move to open on Easter Sunday, all big employers were put under pressure to do likewise. Once one employer called on its staff to work Easter Sunday, psychological pressure was placed on that staff. If shops opened on Easter Sunday, there would be a subtle pressure on consumers to use the opportunity to shop. I applaud those who listened to all sections of public opinion and decided not to open.
Many people disagree with Sunday trading because they see Sunday as a traditional day of rest and the one day in the week when the family can come together as a unit. Many see the six days from Monday to Saturday as adequate service to the community's needs. This is not specific to Irish people. In countries such as Germany, it is difficult to get a litre of milk or a box of matches from Sunday afternoon to Monday morning as everything closes and the right of the family to have Sundays free is respected. Substantial reasons underlie this train of thought, so we are not unusual.
For many, Sunday work is now a reality. They feel there is a need for the finance which can be gained in the extra day's pay. While Sunday trading has not arisen from any request from employees for more hours, it is nonetheless with us. As the Minister of State said, we are not legislating to close everything on Sunday and there is no desire to go that route. Sunday opening is becoming more normal. It seems that, with the working time directive, we are moving to a European ideology that all days are the same. Whether we like it or not, Sunday is commercialised. If the special status of Sunday has changed, the need for legislation becomes even more important.
There should be no compulsion to participate on those who do not wish to do so and their jobs and incomes should not be threatened if they say no, nor should it lead to an increase in the hiring of casual labour. For those who wish to participate, there must be a fair measure of remuneration and fair terms and conditions. The word "optional" is important as are the words "opt out" for the working time directive. Shop workers need the option to decide not to work yet the ability of a business to operate profitably must also be taken into account. That is covered in the Bill where notice must be given by workers if they are not going to work on a Sunday.
I welcome the provision dealing with zero hour contracts because workers should have the right to advance notice of work; the provision insisting on a minimum of time and a half pay for those who opt to work on a Sunday; the provision prohibiting discrimination — if a person does not want to work on a Sunday, they should not be discriminated against on any grounds — and the provision that a shop worker will not be obliged to work on a Sunday without their consent. These seem to be basic rights but it is only now they are being legislated for. I welcome the fact that employees must now get four days' notice of their being required for Sunday work.
Some 45 per cent of shop workers are female which is almost twice the European average. Legislation is important as it will lead to stronger standards and a better quality of life for all. The many women involved in this work should be treated properly. Casual working must also be catered for. The provisions in this Bill will help strengthen the position of full-time workers. Irish workers are recognised the world over for their ability and they are wanted everywhere. We do not want or need exploitation to occur now or in future.
I give Deputy Kitt substantial credit for researching this area thoroughly. There has been widespread interest in the party in this topic. The Bill has been published since November 1996 and has not been pre-empted by any Government legislation. I am glad to see it has come this far and that it will proceed unopposed to Committee Stage. It will mean action will have been taken on an issue which badly needs it. There is no point talking unless action follows quickly. This Bill will strengthen the position of employers, employees and consumers, people will not lose out, there will be a sense of fair play and we will all benefit.
I am pleased the Minister of State has accepted Deputy Tom Kitt's Bill. That is important because he has put a tremendous amount of work into it. It has been on the Order Paper since November 1996. He has had two years of discussions with the unions involved and has a large measure of agreement for the Bill. The agreement of the MANDATE union with the Bill was important. It is also significant that it has been welcomed by RGDATA, something the Minister of State omitted to mention in her critique of the Bill.
The important aspect of this Bill is that it provides protective measures for workers. I was disappointed the Minister of State mentioned it was at worst an exercise in opportunism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who knows Deputy Kitt will know he has a real interest in this area, has been working on it and has been involved in consultation for a long time. It is very unfair even to suggest any hint of opportunism. Rather, Deputy Kitt should be congratulated for the interest and deep commitment he has to people working in the retail trade. They appreciate the amount of time and effort he has expended in ensuring that their rights are protected under legislation brought before this House.
I am surprised the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, is present. I thought the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, would have replied to this matter. I listened to what he said on "Morning Ireland" last week and wondered how, if this matter is part of the brief of the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, he was allowed such an expansive brief. Who has the various portfolios in the Department? Does the Minister or the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, have the portfolio on this matter or is he once again dallying through the daffodil fields on this issue to try to upset, but certainly not to upstage, the Minister of State? However, his dally through the daffodil field on this occasion came a cropper, as he did not seem to realise this Bill had been on the Order Paper for some time.
During the Cork North Central and Cork South Central by-elections the Minister, Deputy Bruton, who was then a spokesperson for his party, indicated there would be no problem in issuing a licence for the deflector system. He said on entering Government he would ensure a temporary licence would be made available to the South Coast Community Television Group in Carrigaline. Two and a half years later that group is still awaiting a temporary licence. We are trying to eke out the report that has been passed on. Nothing has changed except the Taoiseach sinks much further into his seat every time the issue is raised in this House.
The Minister, Deputy Bruton, promised he would introduce legislation on Sunday trading and the protection of workers' rights. It is astonishing that once again Fianna Fáil has to give the lead in this House. What has been happening during the past two and a half years? We have heard there were constitutional and other problems. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, said she accepted the spirit of our Bill, there are good provisions in it and amendments will have to be made on Committee Stage. We have no difficulty with the tabling of amendments on Committee Stage, provided they improve the Bill and ensure workers have greater protection.
The Minister of State expressed some scepticism about the opt out clause and said Deputy Kitt had not addressed that issue. The Minister of State appears to hold the view that the opt out clause would be the absolute exception rather than the rule. Section 3 provides for exemptions for a relative of the proprietor or an owner of a shop. We do not have any difficulty with students working part-time on a Sunday. We are conscious of that and Deputy Kitt ensured that aspect is covered in the Bill. Paragraph (b) provides an exemption for an employee who is normally expected to work for the employer for less than eight hours in a week and paragraph (c) provides an exemption for an employee who has been in continuous service of the employer for less than a month. Protections are inherent in the Bill and it is important that those exemptions are included.
We have been critical and have questioned the activities of Dunnes Stores on many occasions, its approach to its workers and Sunday trading. It is important to record our appreciation that when Dunnes Stores was asked to reconsider its decision about Easter Sunday trading in view of the fact that people consider it a special day in terms of religion and Irish history, it did so. It would have been wrong for it to open on Easter Sunday. We should remind other multiples with headquarters outside Ireland of how special Easter Sunday is to our people. As Dunnes Stores has taken a lead, those stores should also respect the wishes of our people in terms its special nature, whether on religious, historical or cultural grounds. I, together with Deputies Kitt and Keaveney, call on those stores to respect our people's wishes and not open their stores on Easter Sunday. If they took that decision unilaterally, they would be held in far higher regard. I urge them in the strongest possible terms to reconsider their decision.
Sunday trading is exercising our minds. I come from a small village where Sunday was the vital day for trading in our area when proprietors made a few bob after Mass on Sunday morning. Life has moved on since then, the multiples have moved in and their growth has brought about many disconcerting facets. Public opinion is divided on Sunday trading. I have asked many people about their views on it. We must accept that society has changed. In many households both partners work outside the home, many people consider Sunday shopping a social outlet for the family and it is difficult to argue against that viewpoint. However, many others hold the traditional view that Sunday should be a day of rest and I share that sentiment. I would be regarded as following the traditional rather than the modern style.
Sunday trading will cause major problems for those who are actively engaged in sport, whether racing, tennis, camogie, mountain walking or any other leisure pursuit. The psyche of our people has been geared towards Sunday being considered a rest day. The vast majority of our sporting organisations centre their activities and games around Sundays on the basis that Sunday is a day of rest. We should be conscious and take cognisance of that. When the Minister of State introduces legislation on Sunday trading she should take account of the psyche of our people to ensure that people are given as much free time as possible on Sunday to pursue the games and leisure facilities they enjoy. I recognise the issue is extremely complex. I look forward to the introduction of this legislation by the Minister of State in the near future when I am sure we will have a level-headed debate on it.
Debate adjourned.