Comhairle wishes to draw attention to a number of issues in respect of employment which are considered to be relevant to the Employment Working Group under the Review of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy. In recent years Citizens Information Centres (CICs) have been reporting an increasing number of queries from the public in relation to both employment rights and welfare entitlements in respect of various back to work and employment options. (Some 85 CICs throughout the country are supported by Comhairle)
Employment Rights
A range of issues arising from queries from the public to CICs and other independent information providers have been identified and discussed in the Comhairle Social Policy Report, Employment Rights, a copy of which is enclosed for consideration. The main issues identified in the Report refer to:
While a range of legislative measures in respect of
employment protection have been introduced during the past
decade, significant problems are still experienced by
certain categories of workers, particularly those who are
part-time and casual and/or who are not members of a Trade
Union. This is the case despite the fact that there is a
range of bodies charged with the enforcement of employment
legislation.
The Report identifies instances where breaches of
legislation occurred in respect of:
There is evidence of people being dismissed unfairly
before the provisions of unfair dismissals legislation come
into effect.
The Report concludes that an amendment to the Unfair
Dismissals legislation is required so as to remove the one
year's service requirement in all cases where an employee
is dismissed for seeking to avail of or enforce employment
legislation.
Significant information deficits on the part of some
employees in relation to their rights and entitlements are
noted in the Report. These refer in the main to holiday
entitlement, parental leave, conditions of employment and
entitlement to wage increases and redundancy payments. In
some situations workers appear to rely on the employers for
this information. Employers may not always provide
information to employees that is accurate and up to date in
terms of rights and entitlements.
Evidence gathered during the compilation of the Report
suggests that there is a general reluctance on the part of
employees in certain situations to seek information or
discuss employment conditions and rights with employers
because of fear of reprisal. Contact with enforcement
agencies to seek redress often occurs only after the person
has already left the employment.
While the Report contains a number of recommendations in
relation to specific aspects of employment legislation, the
most significant problem identified relates to the actual
enforcement of existing legislation. While there is a range
of bodies charged with employment law enforcement, the
reality is that many of the existing laws are not
adequately enforced.
The Report calls for greater resources across the board to ensure compliance with employment protection legislation. Specifically, it states (taking into account an additional 7 appointments during 2000) that the number of inspectors in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment needs to be increased substantially.
The Report refers to the “diverse and bewildering range
of agencies responsible for the inspection and enforcement
of the different aspects of the employment situation” and
identifies a need for much greater co-ordination and
integration in the area of enforcement and implementation
of legislation. It recommends that the establishment of an
Employment Inspectorate with a strong local dimension,
which would integrate and expand existing roles, should be
examined by Government. Such an Inspectorate would have the
general remit of monitoring all aspects of employment law,
including holiday and leave entitlement, conditions of
employment and health and safety. This would ensure that,
when an employment premises was visited by a public
official, all aspects of the law would be
inspected.
Improvements are also recommended in respect of
informing both employees and employers of the provisions of
employment protection legislation. It is suggested that it
should be made mandatory for employers to display
information on employment rights in the same way as they
are obliged to display information about the legislation
covering the employment of young people. It is also
suggested that a provision should be introduced where
detailed information should be issued by the Revenue
Commissioners to each person as s/he takes up employment
for the first time. Similar information should be provided
to employers, especially small employers, when they
register for PAYE/PRSI for the first time.
There is a particular issue identified in relation to
people who engage in rehabilitative employment in sheltered
workshop situations who are not covered by employment
protection legislation. The recommendations of the
Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities that
the status and rights of people with disabilities in
sheltered work settings should be defined and appropriately
protected and that standards should be introduced for the
establishment and operation of sheltered workshops have not
been implemented. It is noted that the Programme for
Prosperity and Fairness promised a review in this area and
that work has commenced on a Code of Practice.
While the introduction of national minimum wage legislation in April 2000 has no doubt improved the situation of low paid workers, there is ongoing evidence from CICs of instances where the minimum wage is not being paid. On some occasions employers were reported as adopting a ‘take it or leave it' stance when approached on the matter by workers.
There is a growing problem in respect of EU non-nationals coming into the country on work permits and then finding that they are unable to enforce the contracts or agreements they understood were being offered. The following Case Example from provided by a CIC illustrates this issue:
A group of Malaysians came to Ireland to work in a hotel. They signed 2 contracts, one in Malaysia and one in Ireland. The one signed in Malaysia stated that their accommodation is live-in and that they pay £15 per week for heat and electricity. The contract signed in Ireland stated that rent is payable at £15 per week and that they are responsible for utility bills themselves. The £15 per week is deducted from their wages but does not appear on their payslips. The work hours required by their contracts are in breach of the Working Time Act. Initially, the accommodation provided was a 3-bedroomed house for 15 people.
While they are free to leave the employment, there is a delay of 4-5 weeks in issuing work permits for a new employer - this would be longer if the current employer failed to return permits immediately on their leaving the present employment. The workers were concerned that if they left the employment they would be without accommodation.
The CIC involved in this case takes the view that there should be stringent vetting of contracts by the Department before work permits are issued. Another view is that the work permits should be general rather than related to specific employers. However, there are welfare entitlement implications in relation to this.
As the number of non-nationals working in Ireland is likely to increase dramatically in the near future, it is of utmost importance that their rights are protected.
There is a welfare/work issue that arises for some people who are in receipt of Supplementary Welfare Allowance(SWA) Rent Supplement in respect of private rented accommodation who wish to take up work as the following Case Examples illustrate:
A young lone parent was on a rent allowance of £110 per week and consequently a total income of £202.20 including One Parent Family Payment. She was offered a full-time job with good long-term prospects on an initial pay of £230 per week. Childcare would cost £70 per week. The loss of the rent allowance and a reduced One Parent Family Allowance would leave her with an income of £198 per week after paying for child care, an actual reduction of £4 per week in disposable income (she would not be entitled to Family Income Supplement). The person, therefore, decided not to take up the employment.
The key issue in this instance was the cost of child care. Also, her income would have been over the £250 income limit for tapered rent supplement effective from August 2000.
The Case Example which follows is a good illustration of the complexity of the system and how difficult it is for an individual to work out the advantages/disadvantages of various possible courses of action and, specifically, whether or not it is financially attractive to take up part-time work..
A single person is in receipt of Unemployment Assistance(UA) of £77.50 and pays rent of £60 per week.
Rent Allowance is calculated as follows:
Income = £77.50
Subtract SWA Rate for a single person = £76
Remainder is assessable income for rent allowance £1.50
Minimum contribution towards rent £6
Total Contribution £7.50
Approved maximum rent in the health board area £50.00 for a single person.
Subtract the total of £7.50 from the approved rent of £50
Result is a Rent Allowance = £42.50
The person starts to work part- time and earns £60 for two days.
The UA means test is reapplied. There is a disregard of £10 per day for a person without children and 60% of the remainder of earnings is assessed.
Disregard (2 days) = £20
60% of Remainder (£40) = £24
The person's UA is reduced by £24 to £53.50
The Rent Allowance is then recalculated as follows:
UA = £53.50
Earnings = £60
Total = £113.50
Less Disregard of £25 of earnings = £88.50
Less SWA Rate £76
Excess income = £12.50
Add the minimum rent contribution £6
Total Contribution £18.50
Subtract this amount from the approved rent of £50 £31.50
New rent allowance £31.50
At the outset the person had £77.50 in U/A
Rent allowance £42.50
Total £120.00
On taking up part time work the person's income becomes:
UA £53.50
Rent allowance: £31.50
Earnings £60
Total £145
This meant that the person taking up part time
employment and earning £60 for two days work had his rent
allowance and UA reduced by a total of £35 resulting in a
net gain of £25 for two days work.
The income criteria for eligibility for a Medical Card are such that a person working part-time and being paid the minimum wage would be above the income limit and would not, therefore, be entitled to a Medical Card. This has clear implications for people taking up employment, even on a part-time basis. Fear of losing a Medical Card is widely regarded as a disincentive to people taking up employment.
This programme is regarded as not being beneficial to people with disabilities because there are no part-time work options available under the programme. The 39-hour week requirement does not allow for retention of benefits which would be necessary for many people with disabilities. Also, it is likely that the reduction of places available on CE is reducing the work options available to people with disabilities as the 20 hours CE working week meets the rehabilitative work requirement for retention of payments.
The lack of public transport in
outlying rural areas affects people's ability to avail of
employment opportunities in local towns. This was
identified by some CICs as being
particularly problematic for people in receipt of
unemployment payments who were coming under pressure from
the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to
take up work or lose entitlement to benefit.
Comhairle considers that the comprehensive enforcement of existing legislation (including minimum wage legislation) and an amendment to the Unfair Dismissals legislation to remove the one year's service requirement in all cases where an employee is dismissed for seeking to avail of or enforce employment legislation would improve significantly the position of low paid, part-time and casual workers. It is also hoped that the implementation of the commitments given in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness - to review the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, to examine the case for providing additional resources for the Health and Safety Authority and to establish a National Framework for Family-Friendly Policies will translate into a more positive work environment for everyone. More comprehensive information on all aspects of employment rights made more readily available to all workers and employers would do much to address the issues identified. Further consideration of ongoing welfare/work traps is also required, particularly in relation to medical card income criteria, costs of child care and rent supplementation for private accommodation.
