Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

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

SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 31, after "employee," to insert "subject to subsection (3),".

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 31, to delete "24 hours" and substitute "48 hours".

My amendment relates to the phrase "provision of information in relation to working time" on page 16. As I mentioned, our party is concerned about zero hour contracts but this section of the Bill is confusing to say the least, even for people like myself who have received legal advice on it. Legislation on workers' and employers' rights should be as clear as possible.

My amendment concerns the notice given to workers by the employer. The Bill specifies 24 hours' notice before the first day but this is too short. Could a worker be told on Sunday morning that he was working the following Monday? The Minister is shaking her head but if it is the case, I would be concerned for parents who have to obtain child minding facilities. We should give workers adequate notice. I suggest 48 hours as an opening position and we should give them at least 36 hours' notice — for example, if a person is to work on Friday he should be told on Wednesday night. Notice of 24 hours is inadequate. This section is most unclear but it is proposed to put information on notice boards so that workers will understand the precise position. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the area. We welcome the Bill's attempt to deal with zero hour contract but it needs strengthening, which is why I suggest we change it.

Deputy Kitt and I are trying to do the same thing in our amendments but mine goes further. Our intention was that people would get a working day's notice before the weekend and that is clarified in our amendment No. 23, which will provide that someone who will work the following Monday to Friday must be told on the previous Thursday night about their working hours for the following week. I accept it is rather complicated. I have asked the draftsperson to come up with a simpler way to put it and if he does so we will table an appropriate amendment on Report Stage.

After the enactment of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act we published a simple guide or abstract of the legislation — I worked on it to make it even simpler — and put it in the form of an attractive poster. Similarly, our intention is to produce a simple guide to this legislation for the use of workers. With the best will in the world draftsman's English tends to be complicated. I would go further than Deputy Kitt — people should have notice 24 hours before their two day break at the weekend. That is the effect of my amendment No. 23 and that is even stronger than what he suggests.

What are the amendment groupings?

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 concern notice of working hours for the following week and amendment No. 24 is consequential so we are taking them together. Amendment No. 24a deals with a separate point. We are also amending amendment No. 23 because of a typographical error.

The net point of amendment No. 23, as amended, and amendment No. 24 is that one will receive notice on a Thursday evening for the following Monday morning if one takes a normal two-day break on Saturday and Sunday. One must receive the notice on a working day when one is in the employment and can see the notice. The notice must be at least 24 hours before one's weekend or weekly break. This gives workers better notice than Deputy Kitt's suggestion, which tries to do the same thing.

The Minister has outlined her position and clarified what she is endeavouring to do as regards the provision of information on working time. I stated that 24 hours should be changed to 48 hours and the Minister has said she will try to make this section clearer for everyone's sake. I am willing to wait until Report Stage to see how we can improve the position so I will not press a vote on this point.

The effect of Deputy Kitt's amendment No. 22 is that a worker would receive notice on a Saturday about his or her working hours for the following Monday. I suggest that, if Saturday and Sunday is one's normal weekend break, one will receive notice on Thursday evening of one's hours from the following Monday. It is stronger that the Deputy's suggestion.

If an emergency arose, would this provision apply to the emergency services, the police or the prison officers? If an emergency arises in a business what right has an employer, an executive or a management company to call on employees? Will this not create inefficiency in industry or business? There must be a mechanism to overcome this.

The employer will not be obliged to inform someone about unforeseen circumstances or emergency hours he or she will be asked to work but equally an employer could not oblige an employee to work hours which were not part of his or her roster. Normally employees will work during an emergency — for instance, if there is a fire they will move goods out of the company.

We be must practical about this. If a person fails to turn up for rostered duty can somebody else be called in?

We are concerned here with notice of working hours. People must get reasonable notice of their rostered hours to enable them make arrangements. The roster notice would have to be posted by Thursday evening. An employer will not be in breach of this in an unforeseen situation when he asks somebody to work different hours. The nature of the employment contract will dictate whether they are obliged to work in those emergency situations.

In-house arrangements usually apply in good organisations, incorporating custom and precedent. Will this interfere with that?

We are replacing employment law which dates back to the 1930s with a modern framework. Some laws in the 1930s, such as legislation regarding shops which we will repeal, require the posting of rosters. This provides for a modern version of the posting of rosters in recognition that many workers today have family responsibilities which require organisation. People should be able to make social, childcare and personal arrangement reasonably in advance. They should know their regular working hours. Employers will not be responsible for unforeseen circumstances. However, the hiring fair no longer applies.

Nobody is referring to hiring fairs. We are seeking to find a middle ground between employer and employee. Without flexibility the working environment will become uncompetitive leading to loss of production.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, lines 36 to 43, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) If the hours for which an employee is required to work for his or her employer in a week include such hours as the employer may from time to time decide (in this subsection referred to as ‘additional hours'), the employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in that week on which he or she proposes to require the employee to work all or, as the case may be, any of the additional hours, of the times at which the employee will be required to start and finish working the additional hours on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week.

(3) If during the period of 24 hours before the first-mentioned or, as the case may be, the second-mentioned day in subsection (1) or (2), the employee has not been required to do work for the employer, the time at which the employee shall be notified of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall be not later than before the last period of 24 hours, preceding the said first or second-mentioned day, in which he or she has been required to do work for the employer.

(4) A notification to an employee, in accordance with this section, of the matters referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall not prejudice the right of the employee concerned, subject to the provisions of this Act, to require the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the additional hours referred to in subsection (2) at times other than those specified in the notification if circumstances, which could not reasonably have been foreseen, arise that justify the employer in requiring the employee to start or finish work or, as the case may be, to work the said additional hours at those times.".

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 23:

In amendment No. 23, subsection (4) to delete the word "employee" in line 3 and substitute "employer".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 16, subsection (3), line 45 after "subsection (1)" to insert "or (2)".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Barr
Roinn