Paul Murphy Criticises Broad 'Business Grounds' in Remote-Work Bill

Thanks a lot. Firstly, apologies. I only arrived a few minutes ago because I was at our private member's bill, so if I ask any questions that have already been answered, my apologies. Essentially, my question is this, that as currently drafted, the heads of bill are extremely weak and give a right to request, fine, and then a right to deny by the employer on extremely broad grounds of business grounds. Then we have the listing of 13 reasons why, but they're explicitly stated they're not an exhaustive list, so an employer can reject on any business grounds. When we spoke about this with Tanaiste last week, he said that perhaps 13 reasons are too many, and he indicated a willingness to look at the grounds of refusal. That wasn't included in your opening statement. So, are you considering this issue of the grounds being too broad, too wide, et cetera? Yeah, we did talk about this earlier. So, the answer is, yes, we are considering the number of grounds and the wording of them. And, you know, as you may have been here when I said, we're trying to find the right balance between an employer who has to run a business and an employee who has an interest and we want to create a right to request remote working. And we want to take, we want to promote remote working in general and we see all of the benefits that has both for the employee, the employer and indeed wider society and the economy. So, we need to take all of that into account. So, in considering this piece around the grounds and so on, we will be reflecting on all of that. Thanks. Thanks. And within that, are you open to removing the catch-all business grounds? Because in a sense, you could remove all 13 and you're still left with business grounds and that's extremely broad. Any business can say, oh, no, on business grounds. And it seems to me that's where the problem is as opposed to the 13. So, I suppose that what I would say is that thought process in relation to those grounds is still in progress. So, yeah. Okay. And then in relation to, at the moment, what's in the Headsville is the right to appeal as a, effectively a procedural right, what you can appeal on procedural grounds that your employer didn't go back to you in time, as opposed to on substantial grounds that the business grounds that they're citing are not substantiated. You are indicating a willingness to amend or to change that. So, again, I think, as you heard from the Tawnister, we are looking at that. So, to see whether, and he has asked us to examine that to see what can be done in relation to that piece. And we are, you know, we are in the territory of the interests of the employer in running a business and the rights and responsibilities of the employee. And that is a complicated area. Legally, there are quite a number of issues that we need to think through in that space as well. So, it's not, it's not simple, but we are, we have been asked by the Tawnister to look at that and to examine it and to consider what we could do. So, we are looking at that. Okay. I mean, I would say that at the moment as drafted that the balance is very much in favour of the employer and, you know, you're right to request. I think it's very limited when they can just say no and you can't appeal on substantive grounds. So, hopefully that will be amended. And we have, sorry, I don't want to interrupt you, Deputy. So, and we have heard both this morning and as part of our consultation, a number of voices that took a different view. So, where we have to try to find is a piece of legislation that will create a legal framework for employees to request remote working and to have that right to request. But to create a framework where an employer can respond and should respond in a reasonable way to that request and a considered way. So, we, you know, we're very clear that we want to promote remote working in Ireland. We see all of the benefits of it. And so, we're trying to find our way to strike the balance in an appropriate way between the various interests. Thanks. Another question. I know that Alan Eustace and Niamh Eggleston in Trinity have proposed an alternative model of remote working based on annual leave where a worker would effectively be entitled to so many days of remote working in the course of a year. And is that something you've considered as an addition to the current model, which is based on a kind of all year round remote working and right to remote working. But the idea that a worker who normally would travel to their place of work might be able to say, I'm also entitled to 20 days of remote leave and I can remote working and I can take them as as necessary. Yeah, I might ask my colleagues whether they're aware of that work. No, it's not a model that we we looked at in terms of the remote work strategy. It was the ordinary, the bill as it is, was the policy intention from the start of the remote work strategy. So no, that's not a model we've looked at. OK, thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.