New ‘if and when’ contracts have replaced zero-hour regimes

The workplace of 2015 is almost unrecognisable compared to the workplace of 1997, when laws aimed at protecting workers on zero-hour contracts were first introduced. Back then, to prevent the proliferation of zero-hour contracts, where workers have to be “on call”, the last Fine Gael-Labour government legislated to ensure that such staff would be safeguarded from exploitation. The law stipulates employees must be compensated for 25 per cent or 15 hours of the time they had to be available.

Fast forward again to the workplace of 2015, where there has been much debate about zero-hour contracts and precarious work in general.

Our nearest neighbour, the UK has seen an explosion in zero-hour contracts, with an estimated 5 per cent of the workforce constantly being on call.

As part of the Government's Statement of Priorities agreed in July 2014, this week the Department of Business and Employment published a University of Limerick study on the prevalence and impact of zero-hour contracts.

‘If and when’ contracts

Interestingly, the independent study has found zero-hour contracts are not used extensively in Ireland. I believe this shows the 1997 legislation has been successful in ensuring such contracts have not mushroomed as they have across the Irish Sea.

However, UL has identified a new type of precarious work, so-called “if and when” contracts. This type of working arrangements sees employers offer work if and when they have it available, and workers can accept or refuse such work. The key difference between the two types of contracts is there is no obligation on either the employer to offer work or on the employee to take up the work.

What concerns me as the Minister with responsibility for employment is the UL study suggests some employers may be using these “if and when” contracts to avoid paying compensation to workers for being on call.

Some of the impacts of such precarious work include workers not knowing from one week to the next what hours they will be working; the knock-on impact on managing family life and organising childcare when hours are unpredictable; unstable income and difficulty in accessing financial credit; and a belief they will be penalised if they don’t accept work, even when offered at short notice.

From the employer perspective, they say they need the flexibility such contracts allow and that it suits some employees to work in this way.

I do not for a moment dispute the need for some flexibility in the workplace. Certainly it would be trite to think of flexibility as a bad thing and businesses need to be mindful of the needs of customers when it comes to opening hours or availability of services.

Level of protection

But, I also do not think it is unreasonable for workers to have at least a basic level of income security and predictability in their hours.

So, finding the balance here is the key.

UL has come up with a range of recommendations aimed at retaining a level of flexibility and also improving predictability of hours. These include employees receiving a contract of employment on the first day of a new job; giving 72 hours’ notice of requests for work or cancellation of work; ensuring a minimum of three hours continuous working.

It also recommends that where employers and trade unions reach a collective agreement under new collective bargaining legislation , they could opt out of some of the proposals above. Experience shows that locally agreed frameworks often work much better in practice than implementing legislation.

Many of these recommendations seem reasonable. But, I’m conscious both employers and trade unions have only seen this 160-page report this week. so there will be a short period of consultation before recommendations go to Government in the new year.

It’s worth bearing in mind in this context the Central Statistics Office confirmed that 56,800 of the 57,100 jobs created in the last year are full time. That said, there are still too many people who go to bed on a Sunday night not knowing what their working hours for the week will be or if they will earn enough to meet bills.

If, as this study suggests, the law has not kept up with the modern-day workplace then changes will be recommended to Government.

Ged Nash TD is Minister for Business and Employment