Paul Murphy demands worker control over tips distribution

I try to be swift enough on this so we do manage to get through all of them. Effectively the purpose of six is to compel an employer to negotiate an agreement with their employees about the distribution of tips. This is the section dealing with where tips are distributed between the employees. This is their money, this is the workers money, it's not the employers money and so therefore the employees should have a decisive say in how the money is distributed. between them so that there should have to be a negotiation within six months of this act coming into force between the employer and the employees to agree how tips are going to be divided up and that that can then be reviewed by a request of one-fifth of the relevant employees. The other parts quickly is adding in the possibility of this review coming on the back of a workplace inspection as to whether a fair distribution of tips is taking place. removing the reference to the fact that whether the employee is on a full-time or part-time contract of employment is something to be taken into account. Given that the above point, point C, does include the proportion or number of hours worked by the employee, it is entirely reasonable that that will be taken into account in terms of how tips are divided. But once you are taking that into account, then there is no need to separately consider the point of full-time or part-time. Thirdly, in relation to what is currently point E, the role and influence of the employee in providing service to customers. I don't really understand what the meaning of influence is. I don't see why we need to have influence referenced here. I can delete it. Next point is, again, where it is to prioritise the question of an agreement, that where you can prove that you have an agreement that's not manifestly unfair, that takes priority. And then I think the others are Deputy O'Reilly's. Thank you. Minister, do you wish to address this group of amendments? Yes, please. Number 6 onward. Amendments 6, 13 and 16 would require the employer to negotiate and obtain an agreement of employees on the matter of the distribution of tips and gratuities. As it stands, the Bill provides that the employer must consult their employees. It also establishes a legal entitlement for workers to receive their tips and gratuities paid in electronic form, with the provision that these tips and gratuities should be paid out to workers in a fair and transparent manner. Requiring the employer to obtain the agreement of the employees is a high threshold for the employer to meet, and is not within their control. We also believe the amendment is impractical, as it would require the consent of all employees before a change in policy could be introduced. So even one employee, or a minority of employees, could prevent a policy change against the wishes and interests of the majority of employees and the employer. This will be profoundly undemocratic. Seeking to introduce some form of qualified majority is equally likely to be impractical, but would not be impossible. An important requirement of the new Bill is that the employer must provide a statement to workers showing the amount of electronic tips obtained in a period and the portion paid to individual employees for that particular period. This will ensure transparency. In relation to Amendment 10, the amendment seems to confer a new function on the WRC adjudicators of inspecting workplaces and determining whether the distribution of tips and gratuities is fair. It is difficult to justify carrying out inspections in circumstances where nobody has made a complaint and would not be a good use of the WRC's resources. Employees can have recourse to the WRC if they have a grievance and make a complaint, and I am satisfied that this will provide ample protection for them. Amendments 11, 12 and 14 seek to amend the factors that a WRC adjudicator can consider in determining an employee complaint on whether tips distribution is fair. I think the factors in the Bill as a stands are well balanced, that they are relevant, and crucially they are not restrictive. The adjudicator can, of course, consider other factors where they consider them to be relevant. Amendment 15 would be a disproportionate intrusion on an employer. Employees in small businesses where employers also do work will usually have a good understanding of the level of work the employer does. They also already have the protection that they must be aware of the tips and gratuities policy. They can have recourse to the WRC if they have a complaint. This amendment would require employers to send out their personal financial information to their staff on a regular basis. This would even include staff who may be employed on an only occasion or part-time basis. Every employee would then become a data processor under GDPR. I understand the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that staff are informed if their employer is taking a proportion of the tips. That is an understandable request or desire. We do not want to let abusive employers off the hook. But we do think it would be disproportionate and intrusive in this regard, and would leave employees in a position where they would become data processors under GDPR. Is the amendment to the amendment? What is the amendment? What is the amendment?