Paul Murphy: Simplify Tipping Rules for Tip-Receiving Employers
Paul Murphy moved Amendment No. 3 to narrow the criteria for applying tipping and gratuity regulations, arguing they should apply where tips typically occur. He said the amendment would remove additional tests that could prevent protections reaching workers in tipping sectors.
Amendment's intention
The amendment would limit the ministerial decision to a single test - whether employers carry on a business in the state in relation to which the payment of tips or gratuities by customers typically applies - and remove wider considerations currently listed in section 4A.
Objection to broader tests
Paul Murphy criticised provisions that require regulators to weigh factors such as the likely impact of regulations on employment, saying such tests could be used by employers' organisations to argue against protections where tipping becomes more common in a sector.
Ministerial regulation and consultation
The Tánaiste responded that the bill's provisions will be applied by ministerial regulation and only where appropriate, with consultation involving representative organisations for both employers and employees. The Tánaiste said the regulations are intended to target sectors where tips and service charges are a regular feature and where customers often misunderstand what a service charge is for.
Protections for platform and self-employed workers
The Tánaiste said accepting the amendment would have the unintended effect of restricting protections to an employment relationship and removing safeguards for platform workers and some self-employed people, as section 4f would then only apply to employees. On that legal basis the amendment could not be accepted.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Will Murphy to move and address Amendment No. 3? I'm withdrawn. Is this not? It's not. Is this not me? Oh, sorry, Paul Murphy, is it? Yes, sir. Well, yeah, okay. No, it's Cabernet. Nia Maxima Culpa. But I appreciate your thinking on your feet, Catherine. That you quickly thought, oh, I have no idea what that is, so I'm going to withdraw it. No, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm just joking. I'm not withdrawing this, so effectively the aim of this is at the moment in 4A, there's this big long process in terms of the things that the Minister should take into account in terms of whether the essence of what we're passing here applies to an employer or a class of employers. So they have to take into account, and on this one I agree, whether or not employers to which the regulations relate are carrying on a business in the state in relation to which the payment of tips or gratuities by customers typically applies. Like, that's the one that makes sense. But then there's a whole lot of other stuff that, in my opinion, I just don't really understand why it's there. For example, the second one, the likely impact of such regulations on employment either generally or in the particular economic sector to which the regulations relate. I mean, does that raise the possibility that, say, you have an emerging sector where tips are increasingly being paid, and that can happen, that, you know, areas of the economy where tips weren't normal before become normal in a certain part of the economy. But the employer's organisations say, oh no, sure, if we had everyone paying tips here, or if we ensured that employers couldn't rob the tips of the workers, then we'd have to let workers go, and that employment could be affected. So, the amendment is very simple in the sense that it removes all the other things that have to be considered, and simply says that this should apply to all employers carrying on a business in the state in relation to which the payment of tips or gratuities by customers typically applies. Like, surely that's the thing, that's what matters, is that this is a sector of the economy where tipping exists, is common, etc., as opposed to all of the other things that are referenced. Thank you Deputy Murphy, anyone else on this one? No. Tawnishty. I thank the Deputy for explaining the intention of the amendment. My understanding is that it would place an obligation on employers to comply where it may not make sense to do so. The provisions of the bill will be applied by means of ministerial regulation where it is appropriate to do so, and in consultation with representative organisations representing both employers and employees. The regulations will apply to sectors where tips and gratuities are a regular feature, and where there is often significant customer uncertainty as to what a service charge is for. As drafted, the deputy's amendment would also have the unintended effect of removing the protections of this bill intended to create for platform workers. This is because the amendment where accepted section 4f would only apply to an employment relationship. The fact is that platform workers generally are not employees, and indeed the same could apply to some self-employed people. We have ensured that the protections of the bill as currently drafted will extend to them, and that customers will be entitled to know whether the tips they intend to direct to those workers will actually reach them. The amendment therefore would remove this protection, and based on this legal advice I can't accept the amendment. The amendment becomes
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
