Firms unheard on labour law change

The contentious issue of industrial relations is again making headlines, with the Education and Workforce Select Committee this week reporting back on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

From a business perspective, it is a particularly disappointing report. Though some 55 per cent of submitters were against most if not all of the provisions in the bill, not one of their suggestions was picked up.

BusinessNZ provided submissions in four key areas: the duty to conclude bargaining; the removal of opt-out clauses for multi-employer collective agreements; union delegate access to workplaces without notification; and amendments to the 90-day trial option.

On the first of these points, we believe that imposing a duty to conclude a collective agreement breaches international law, which New Zealand ratified in 2003.

International Labour Organisation supervisory bodies have on many occasions noted that requiring parties to conclude bargaining is not consistent with the law, and that collective bargaining negotiation should be voluntary.

This does not mean we object to collective bargaining, or collective agreements per se.

However, these are not the only means of resolving issues relating to working conditions, and we therefore also support the ability of employers and their employees to use other means where these are more appropriate.

Some say we need a duty to conclude because parties, particularly employers, can simply refuse to bargain. This is incorrect. No employer can escape going to the table.

Collective bargaining may be initiated with as few as two employees, and employers are required to bargain in good faith until all matters have been considered and responded to.

In many cases this does result in a collective agreement, but sometimes it is not possible.

Our second concern is with multi-employer collective agreements. There are very few of these in New Zealand and are mostly in the public sector (for nurses and teachers, for example).

Requiring private-sector employers who are otherwise competing with each other to agree to common terms and conditions of employment can have serious unintended consequences, with implications for workers’ jobs in the regions and for the economy in general.

Our third concern is that union officials will be able to access workplaces without notification.

Even the police are unable to enter your home or workplace without a warrant. Why should union officials not be made to at least give reasonable notice or, preferably, ask permission?

I suspect good unions would have no problem with this.

The problems will come from those who choose not to respect the employer’s obligation to manage the workplace effectively and safely.

Our fourth main issue is the curtailing of the availability of the 90-day trial period.

These were never designed to increase the number of jobs available, as some have suggested.

Rather, trial periods give employers the ability to take a chance on people who would otherwise struggle to get jobs because they have no experience, skills, or qualifications.

These include our youth, many of our unemployed, and those who have been away from the workplace for a period. Don’t they deserve a go too?

And if some employers have been exploiting these trial periods, the Labour Inspectorate – the Government’s regulatory arm – should be acting on that.

These are not merely BusinessNZ’s concerns. They are the concerns of many of our members, and we exist to give them a voice.

This bill will affect every workplace, business and worker in the country.

It will work against a hightrust collaborative workplace. It will discriminate against nonunion employees, and make it harder for businesses and jobs to grow.

It will ultimately harm New Zealand. It remains critical for business to know that it has a voice, and that the Government is hearing it and responding. Any sign of this will be welcomed.

Even the police are unable to enter your home or workplace without a warrant. Why should union officials not be made to at least give reasonable notice or, preferably, ask permission? I suspect good unions would have no problem with this.