Paul Murphy challenges 'right to request' remote working as insufficient

Thanks a lot, Chair and Tanaiste. Just like to explore some of the concluding remarks of the Tanaiste, you mentioned taking the lead in creating five new workers' rights, one of those being the right to request remote home or hybrid working. But isn't that the case? I mean, what you're talking about isn't really much of a right at all, if it's just the right to request. If we had a situation where you have a right to request a minimum wage, people would think that's pretty laughable. the right to request time off, the right to request a vote. I mean, it's not much of a right when you've provided that, okay, the employee can ask for it, and then the employer can reject it on the grounds that it's not suitable on business grounds, and you helpfully give 13 reasons why it may not be, but stress that it's not limited to those. So effectively, you're turning the clock back, that one of the few benefits for workers in the course of the pandemic, in terms of being able to work from home is being reversed, and going back to a situation where workers will be compelled to go into the workplace, even if their work can be done very effectively at home. Yeah, I totally reject that it's turning the clock back. At the moment, workers don't have any legal right to request remote working. What's happening in practice, in reality, at workplace level, all over Ireland is people are being very sensible. And even where employees don't have the right to remote working in their contract, or provided for in their contract, we see what's happening in the workplace is workers and employers are being very practical and agreeing arrangements that suit both sides. And that's what's going to happen in reality. And that is what's happening in reality is, during the pandemic, people were forced to work at home, are told to work at home. Some people will want to go back to the office full time, others will want to work remotely, most will want to blend, and in the vast majority of circumstances, that will be worked out at workplace level without the need for any government intervention. Where this I think becomes relevant is in those cases where there isn't any contractual right at the moment to remote working and where an employer hasn't worked out something at workplace level with their employees. And in the proposed legislation, for example, there is a requirement that every business should have a remote working policy. That's not the case at the moment. I think that's beneficial to existing staff or any new staff that might come along to at least know what their employer's policy is in relation to remote working. And the legal right is essentially a procedure that will be followed. If somebody requests remote working requires that the employer takes it seriously and allows for an appeal to the WRC. I would say though that it's only a PLS stage. I'm absolutely open to the view that it needs to be strengthened. Maybe 13 reasons is too many. And maybe we need to make sure, as I indicated in the entries I did on it, that it isn't just a procedural right, that it's not a case of an employer just ticking a box and saying no, that it's possible to have that reviewed. You know, somebody can't just manifestly, ridiculously refuse a request that is reasonable. So, like, I'm open to having this legislation strengthened. It is only a PLS stage. It's not the bill isn't drafted yet. Okay. I mean, just to explore that further. I mean, as it stands, and I take your points and that's welcome that you're willing to review it. But as it stands, all this provides is the right to request and the right to employer to say no. And even the suggestion that, oh, 13 reasons might be too many, I think is to miss the point that the 13 reasons are actually just examples given. And instead, there's an overarching position that the proposal requested is not suitable on business grounds. And then the head of bill explains, without prejudice to business grounds, business grounds may include but are not limited to. So, an employer can currently, as it stands, reject a request simply on the ground. It doesn't suit my business. And there's a number of examples they can give, but they can just say, oh, it's not suitable on business grounds. The other point I'd make is just, isn't it the case that as it's currently drafted, you're right, if your employer says no, if they say no within the designated timeframe, you have no right to appeal. There is no right to appeal on substantive grounds as it's currently drafted. It instead is only if they fail to meet, for example, the procedure around it, so they're delayed in responding to you. But if the employer says, no, it's not possible to do the job, or we cannot reorganize work amongst existing staff, even if that's patently ridiculous, you can't appeal the substantive rejection in the current heads of bill. You can only appeal a procedural error by the employer. Yeah, that's correct, Deputy, but as I indicated on the day that the heads were published, that we intend to strengthen that so that it's not just a procedural right. It can't be just the case that an employer ticks one of 13 boxes or ticks an AN other box, that this will be more than a procedural right. And if the rejection is manifestly unfair, that the WRC will be able to respond to that. But we do need to be realistic as well, though, you know, that there can't be an absolute right to remote working. And I think people understand that there's a huge number of jobs that just can't be done remotely construction, most of retail, hospitality, manufacturing. I won't bore you with the list. You all know how many jobs can't be done remotely. And then it is the case that there is other work that it might be possible to do remotely. But in doing so, services provided to the public would be diminished and perhaps business performance will be reduced. And that's not fair either. So, you know, we have to get the balance right here in terms of how this law lands and the view of the AG. And it's very strong of 36 pages of legal advice on this, saying that there's very strong limitations in the extent to which government can intervene and alter or change a contract that an employer and employee have entered into freely and legally. So the legislation can be strengthened. I intend to strengthen it. I hope some good proposals will come out of the committee when you do your pre-legislative scrutiny. But I think what happened in the pandemic is remote working and hybrid working or home working really happened all of a sudden. And a big change happened as a consequence of the pandemic, which was largely for the positive, but a lot of complicated things weren't teased out. And we actually now have to tease them out, you know, around health and safety, for example, how is that going to apply in the home? To what extent would the employer be responsible for an injury in your home office? If you burn yourself in your kitchen, which, of course, while you're on a work break, you know, a lot of these things need to be teased out and they weren't, unfortunately, or couldn't be during the pandemic. And I think we now have an opportunity to do that. And that's why I think in-depth pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee would be really welcome on this particular piece of legislation. And I'm very open minded on changes and improvements, but I don't want to cod people either. There can't be an absolute right to remote working because some jobs can't be done remotely and people do need to have some autonomy to run their businesses as they see fit. You're counterposing an absolute right to work remotely regardless of job versus no right whatsoever, because let's be clear. I mean, what you're proposing is currently just it isn't a right to remote working in certain circumstances or anything. All that's being proposed currently is the right to request it. There is like a big, big gap between the absolute right to work remotely regardless of what job you're in. And on the other hand, just the right to ask and the right of the employer to say. Your time is up there. No. Okay. Yeah, I'll come in for a second. Thanks very much. Thanks very much. Thanks. Thanks.