With the permission of the House, I will go through details of the Bill. This is a technical Bill and I hope we will be able to isolate the main points. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the provisions of the EU Directive on an Employer's Obligation to Inform Employees of the Conditions Applicable to the Contract or Employment Relationship.
The Bill obliges employers to provide their employees with a written statement of particulars of their terms of employment and to notify them of any changes in those particulars. The Bill also provides for a system of redress for any employee who considers that he or she has been denied entitlement to information under the terms of the Bill.
As regards the intent and effect of the Bill, one point I would like to emphasise at the outset is that the Bill is primarily concerned with the provision of basic information. The Bill simply requires employers to give their employees a written statement of their terms of employment. It provides a system of redress where the particulars of the terms of employment contained in the written statement are incomplete or inaccurate. The availability of a clear and unambiguous statement of the terms of employment will ensure a high level of transparency in the employment relationship. This will help to ensure that the employee and the employer will have a good understanding of their respective obligations to each other and it will eliminate any misconceptions about the employment relationships.
This level of clarity will be of significant benefit to the employer and the employee. It will help to avoid subsequent disputes as to the employee's and employer's entitlements and obligations and it will facilitate continuing good relations in the workplace. All good employers would agree that the provisions of such information represents a positive approach to proper management and cannot fail to contribute to the development of a proper sense of openness and mutual trust between people in the workplace.
A requirement to provide information to employees about their terms of employment has been enshrined in legislation for some time. For the past 20 years most employees have been entitled to a range of information about their terms of employment under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. However, the range of information required by this Bill is somewhat more extensive and it reflects the needs arising from developments in employment arrangements over the years. Accordingly, the provisions of this Bill builds on provisions contained in the 1973 Act.
I would like to mention some of the main differences between the 1973 Act and the provisions in this Bill. The scope of the Bill is wider than existing legislation as it applies to all employees other than those who work less than eight hours each week or have less than four weeks' continuous service. The 1973 Act, as amended by the Worker Protection (Regular Part-time Employees) Act, 1991, excludes those who work less than eight hours each week or who have less than 13 weeks continuous service. It also excludes certain limited types of employment. The range of employment particulars to be included in the statement required under this Bill is more extensive than is required under the existing legislation.
The Bill introduces for the first time a complaints procedure which gives employees access to the rights commissioner and, on appeal, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal if they believe they have failed to secure their entitlement to full and accurate written information on their terms of employment.
Before I deal with the specific provisions of the Bill, I take this opportunity to mention the background to the introduction of the directive and, in a broader context, to reflect on Ireland's position on European Union measures designed to protect the employment rights of workers. The directive, which gives rise to this Bill, has its origins in the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers or, as it is more commonly known, the Social Charter. That charter identified a number of measures necessary to promote improved working conditions for workers in the context of the establishment of the Internal Market. One of those measures was that employees should be given written information on their conditions of employment. Arising from that provision, the EU Commission proposed this directive which requires member states to put in place the necessary legislative provisions to ensure that employees are provided with information.
As a signatory of the Social Charter, Ireland is committed to the development of initiatives designed to improve economic and social cohesion. We have consistently adopted a constructive and positive approach to the development of social policy while taking account of the need to avoid the imposition of costs and obligations which would adversely affect competitiveness and employment.
In the debate on social policy and its relationship to employment creation, it is fair to say that many responses are often overly simplistic and can distort the true position. I believe a balanced approach between measures designed, on the one hand, to stimulate employment and, on the other, to protect workers' rights can provide the desired consensus for the purpose of achieving an efficient and just labour market. A business environment which is both economically efficient and socially just is most likely to give rise to social and economic benefits for all.
In that context, it is appropriate to refer to the White Paper on Employment Growth and Competitiveness and the Green Paper on Social Policy which have been published by the EU Commission. The publication of these documents has led to a widespread debate on how to proceed in the broad industrial and social policy area and on the economic environment in which these are set. As part of that debate I am hosting a major conference on the Green Paper in Dublin Castle on 28 March, aimed specifically at encouraging responses from interests on how the European Union should proceed in the social policy area. A feature to note in both documents is the stress placed on links between economic and industrial measures on the one hand and social measures on the other.
The Programme for a Partnership Government and the recent Programme for Competitiveness and Work have struck a balance between initiatives aimed at economic expansion and employment creation and those dealing with employment, law and labour affairs. It is through this process of consultation and consensus at national level that we have been able to balance our approach to labour legislation. I hope a similar approach, aimed at achieving a high level of consensus, will continue to provide the basis for the determination of future priorities in the social policy area at European and national level.
Before I proceed to the provisions of the Bill, I consider that a balanced approach to legislation, which we have achieved with this Bill, does not impose any real threat to or burden on employers. On the contrary, I am convinced this Bill, which is based on and reflects the consensus agreed by the member states in adopting the directive, will contribute to the development and maintenance of proper and constructive employment relationships between employers and employees.
I will now deal with the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is the interpretation section. The definition "contract of employment" has been designed to encompass not only the traditional contract of service but also contracts under which workers are engaged by employment agencies. The decision to bring employment agency workers within the scope of this legislation follows from a commitment already made and this is enshrined in other legislation, including the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993.
Section 2 provides for exclusions from the provisions of the Bill. It shall not apply to an employee who is normally expected to work for less than eight hours a week or who has been in continuous service for less than four weeks. This is consistent with the terms of the directive and achieves the proper balance between the protection of the worker and the need for flexibility on behalf of the employer. Section 2 also contains an enabling provision to allow other classes of employment to be excluded by order from any provisions of the Bill. In that regard, I accepted an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to provide that any such exclusion will only be put into effect after consultation with the social partners. I must stress, however, that the power to exclude classes of employment from the Bill is restricted by the terms of the directive to employments of a casual or specified nature and the exclusion must be justified.
Section 3 is a key provision. It specifies the particulars of the terms of employment which an employer must give in writing to an employee and provides that the information must be given not later than two months after the date of commencement of employment. Certain particulars may be given by the employer through reference to legislation or collective agreements governing those particulars, provided they are reasonably available.
Many of the particulars specified in section 3 of the Bill are already specified in section 9 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, which is being repealed by this Bill. The 1973 Act required that particulars be given to the employee on such matters as the date of commencement of employment, remuneration, hours of work, holidays, sick pay and pensions and notice periods. This Bill extends the list of particulars to include the name and address of the employer, the place of work, the job title, the expected duration of temporary contracts of employment and a reference to any collective agreements.
Section 3 also requires that the written statement be signed by or on behalf of the employer and that it must be retained for one year after the employee's employment has ceased. The requirement to provide a written statement only applies to employees recruited from the date of commencement of the legislation. Section 6, to which I will come shortly, deals with the rights of existing employees.
Section 4 deals with employment outside the State. It provides that, in the case of employees assigned to work abroad for a period of not less than one month — such cases are numerous — an employer must provide, prior to the employee's departure from the State, the complete written statement described in section 3. Also, the employer must provide certain supplementary information which includes the period of employment outside the State and the benefits in cash or kind resulting from that employment. This is a recognition of the growing trend of employment contracts to provide for periods of employment in other countries.
Section 5 deals with changes in the particulars of the terms of employment and provides that any such changes must be notified to the employee within one month. However, where the change is related to the employee being assigned to work outside the State, the change must be notified before the departure of the employee from the State.
Section 6 provides for existing employees. It provides that where an existing employee requires his or her employer to furnish a written statement of particulars of terms of employment, the employer must supply it within two months of the date of request. It would not be reasonable or administratively feasible to require employers to automatically furnish a written statement of employment terms to each existing employee on the date of implementation of the directive in national legislation. It was decided as a compromise that employers would only be required to provide particulars of the terms of employment to existing employees if so requested and that the employer would have two months in which to do so.
The directive requires member states to put in place adequate measures to allow employees to pursue complaints if they consider that their employers have not given them their entitlements. Sections 7, 8, and 9 deal with the adjudicative process. In summary, the system of redress which I have incorporated in these sections of the Bill is a right of access to the rights commissioner in the first instance, with a right of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and enforcement of determinations of the tribunal, if necessary, in the District Court. This will allow an inexpensive and readily accessible system of redress.
Section 7 provides that an employee may refer a complaint to a rights commissioner and it allows the rights commissioner a range of options. In addition, the rights commissioner may order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of a maximum of four weeks remuneration. In relation to the powers of remedy, I refer briefly to one specific provision, that is, the power of the rights commissioner to alter or add to the details in the written statement. Following concerns expressed to me about this provision, I was pleased to include an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to make it explicit that the purpose of this provision is to allow the rights commissioner to correct any inaccuracies or omissions in the written statement, and that is all; in other words, the rights commissioner will not have the power to adjudicate on terms of employment.
Section 8 provides an avenue of appeal from, and enforcement of, recommendations of a rights commissioner to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal is empowered to issue a determination which affirms, varies or sets aside the recommendation of the rights commissioner. This is similar to a provision which was included in the recent Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993, based on the operation of the unfair dismissals legislation over the past years. The intention of the provision is to discourage employers from ignoring the rights commissioner procedure. This section also provides for a fine of £1,000 for failure to attend before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, refusal to give evidence or failure or refusal to produce documents. This is consistent with the level of fines included in other legislation.
Section 9 deals with enforcement of determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It provides that, where an employer fails to implement a determination, the Minister or the employee concerned or the employee's trade union may apply to the District Court for an order directing the employer to implement the determination. Section 9 also empowers the District Court to include in the order interest on the amount of any financial compensation awarded. This mirrors a provision of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993.
Section 10 deals with evidence in relation to prosecution of a person for failure to attend before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It also mirrors a provision of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act. It is intended to resolve problems which have arisen in the past. Section 11 is a standard requirement relating to orders and regulations made under the legislation. Section 12 is a standard section dealing with expenses incurred in the administration of the Act.
Section 13 repeals sections 9 and 10 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Section 9 of the 1973 Act specified the details of the terms of employment to be provided by an employer to an employee and the timescales for the supply of that information. Section 10 provided that an employer who failed to comply with this could be prosecuted. Those provisions of the 1973 Act are overtaken by the provisions in this Bill, particularly the ones dealing with more extensive information. Section 14 is a standard provision dealing with the short title and date of commencement.
Before concluding, I reiterate that this Bill represents further evidence of Ireland's commitment to implementation of measures adopted by the European Union in the context of the social dimension enshrined in EU policy. Moreover, I am satisfied that the legislative requirement to provide written information on the terms of employment will be seen as a positive step in establishing greater transparency in the employment relationships between employers and employees. The good employer has nothing to fear from this legislation and I am confident its provisions will be seen as an asset to the continued development of harmonious relationships in the workplace.
While I may, perforce, have dwelt at length on the specific sections of the Bill, we are talking about a simple form enshrining a relationship between employers and employees. To portray it as a huge restriction on employment is incorrect. Most employers and employees are good. We do not seek to spancel business or curtail its expansion but to provide for harmonious relationships. The Treaty of Rome refers to economic and social cohesion and this is enshrined in legislation here and in other countries. An incorrect view has developed that proper worker protection legislation is leftist and should not be entertained. I can inform the House that from my brief experience of 15 months in dealing with the consideration of directives at European level and their translation into national legislation, it is a long and sometimes tortuous process. You deal with each of the social partners and see their points of view. It is a general easing along the road which goes on endlessly at European level with officials and politicians. Formal and informal meetings take place and great cognisance is taken of the viewpoints of all of the social partners. Europe is not blind to the need for a flexible approach to employment.
It was interesting to read about the recent debate at the G7 summit. I briefly had the opportunity to talk to some people who participated in it — they were not from this country as we are not one of the richest countries of the world. There is clearly a growing recognition in the US that they have achieved a great deal of employment in recent years at the expense of a huge growth in an underclass of society. That has been clearly acknowledged by American policy makers. I spent last Monday and Tuesday in Boston. I was not away for St. Patrick's Day but was attending my home town festivities.
