The Minister of State for Business and Employment has compared precarious employment contracts known as "if and when" contracts to casual labour 19th century hiring fairs and the Dublin Docks of the 1950s.
Addressing the Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ged Nash voiced concern that in law, such workers may not actually have contracts at all, and may lose the protection of employment rights legislation.
A recent University of Limerick investigation of zero and low hours contracts revealed the prevalence of "if and when" contracts, where the employee is not required to be available for work at all times - but equally has no guarantee of income or hours of work.
Minister Nash said that "if and when" contracts involve a simple understanding between the employer and the worker that work may be offered and may be accepted, though with no underlying obligation.
Without that "mutuality of obligation", there may be no legal contract, meaning such workers would lose protection in areas like unfair dismissal and redundancy.
He also noted they may not be able to avail of legal minimum pay floors for zero hours contracts.
He acknowledged that the employer's need for flexibility had to be balanced with the employee's need for some level of income security.
However, he told the Committee that "if and when" contracts were bringing Ireland back to an era when the employer could pick his daily complement of labour from an institutionalised pool of casual workers who could hope for nothing more than an offer of one day's work.
He said the vast bulk of employment protection laws are based on an assumption of an employment contract usually lasting a minimum of two years.
He noted the recommendations of the UL report - including minimum three hour blocks of work, and time and a half for work without 72 hours notice.
Mr Nash acknowledged that the viewpoints of worker and employers groups were "diametrically opposed" - with unions backing the UL report and employer bodies against them on grounds of greater cost and loss of flexibility.
He acknowledged that "if and when" arrangements may suit some workers for family or educational reasons.
He referred to the imbalance in the "if and when" relationship, where so much of the downside and the risk seem to have been transferred to the employee.
He asked the committee whether it was willing to see business reduce costs and increase profits at the expense of what he called an "underclass of labour" that does not even have the benefit of a written employment contract - the most basic of entitlements.
He said it needed to clarify the employment status of "if and when" workers for the purposes of tax, social welfare, and employment protection laws, concluding that it was time to bring such workers "back in from the cold".
