I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Government has driven hesitation and has stitched delay and employer vetoes into law. Only a few months ago, it vetoed our Bill to stop employers holding a veto over joint labour committees. It endeavours to leave workers with the allusion of flexibility but none of the protections of a just society. The result is a system that talks about modern work while quietly forcing people back into habits that no longer make sense.
This Bill would facilitate the enjoyment by employees of an appropriate work-life balance, with due regard to the rights of employers to manage an effective and efficient work force. This Bill would promote access to employment, particularly for persons who face particular difficulties in taking up employment, such as people with disabilities or those who often find childcare difficult and expensive. It would result in reduction in traffic congestion and in carbon emissions arising from the number of employees commuting between home and their workplaces. It would result in a rebalancing of the population densities as people would not be forced to reside in the major cities while enduring extortionate rent and property prices. However, mainly, this Bill is about seriously improving the work-life balance of workers where it is reasonably practicable. That is the key here.
This Bill also enshrines safeguards for employers. No employer should be forced into an agreement that jeopardises their business, their business's confidentiality or already agreed practices. For this reason, the Bill contains the following grounds. An employer may refuse a request if the arrangement is "not reasonably practicable." They may refuse if the nature of the employee's work does not permit that it be done at a remote location. They may refuse if it is not reasonably practical for the employer to reorganise the work done by their employees to facilitate remote working. They may refuse if the proposed arrangement is reasonably likely to adversely affect the quality of the employer's product or service, the quality of the work of the employee, or if the workspace at the proposed work location is not a suitable workspace for the employee to work in. This may be as a result of the need to protect business confidentiality or intellectual property and to comply with enactments relating to data protection, that the health and safety of the employee at work is not protected, that poor Internet connectivity and other infrastructural resources at the proposed remote location are not sufficient or that the proposed arrangement conflicts with the provisions of already applicable collective agreements. These are serious safeguards to allow employers the peace of mind when hiring new staff or engaging with current employees. This legislation would give workers an immediate and enforceable right to work remotely where their role allows, and it would end the sweeping right employers currently enjoy to refuse flexible and remote working arrangements.
This legislation is about dignity at work, quality of life, and whether Ireland is serious about building a labour market or retreating to an outdated model built around control rather than productivity. In the past, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil legislated for the employer's right to say "No". As long as the paperwork is in order, the refusal stands no matter how arbitrary or outdated the reasoning. That is not balance; it is a blank cheque to employers.
It is also important to say that this is not about forcing remote work into roles where it does not fit. It is about ending refusals based on habit, suspicion or a fixation with visibility rather than productivity. For many, this will be the difference between being able to work or not being able to work at all. As a Government and an Oireachtas we must lead on this. Take Enterprise Ireland for example. This State agency is reportedly requiring staff to return to the office three to four days a week, despite the fact its headquarters are in Eastpoint Business Park in Dublin, which is extremely difficult to access by public transport. The predictable result is more people forced into cars, adding to congestion and emissions. This directly undermines our stated climate and transport goals. When State bodies behave like this, they normalise going backwards and they give cover, or absolute encouragement, to the private sector to do the same.
This legislation offers a clear alternative. It would expand participation, support regional communities and give people back hours of their lives currently wasted in traffic.