Contracts move under fire

The Government is planning new protections for workers but will stop short of banning zero hours contracts.

The move has already drawn criticism from unions and some businesses for failing to go far enough to protect vulnerable workers.

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse yesterday signalled moves this year to prevent unfair employment practices such as zero hours contracts.

He said while the country had a balanced and flexible labour market some practices were unnecessary and unacceptable.

‘‘For example, zero-hour contracts refers to employment arrangements, including permanent, where the employer does not guarantee any hours of work, yet requires employees to be available. This is unfair and makes it difficult for employees to plan their financial and personal lives.’’

But speaking on TV One’s Q and A programme Woodhouse said there was no real definition of zero hours contracts.

Under the changes if an employer wanted someone to be on call, then there would be ‘‘reasonable compensation’’ for that, but the law would not put a figure on it. He said a retainer was the obvious way to compensate on-call workers but that would not be necessary or appropriate in some industries.

It was not appropriate for people to be sent home when it was quiet at work. ‘‘To be sent home during a shift or just before the start of a shift would not be lawful under these arrangements unless reasonable compensation was paid.’’ But he agreed it would still be possible for an agreement to have no stipulated hours. ‘‘That would effectively be a casual agreement where there is no commitment on either side to a minimum number of hours or by the employee to accept hours when offered.’’

He thought there would usually be a minimum commitment and any more hours would be by mutual agreement.

The changes would also tighten the rules around deductions from wages – highlighted this year by petrol stations docking wages when motorists drove off without paying.

Woodhouse said that was probably unlawful already, but he would make it clear that was unlawful when the cause was not the fault of the employee.

But Labour leader Andrew Little said the plan would not outlaw zero hours contracts but do the reverse – entrench them in law. ‘‘National promised to get rid of zero hours contracts. It hasn’t. It has just made new rules for how to use them.’’

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the contracts should be outlawed and what was being proposed was a ‘‘betrayal of every family in the country’’.

The CTU wanted hours of work included in an agreement wherever practicable and a presumption of full time work if the worker wanted it and it was available.

Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce was also critical. He said the proposal ignored work-life balance, the needs of the family and protection for those that were weak.

Zero hours contracts should have been outlawed, as the Government signalled it would earlier in the year, Barnett said.

But BusinessNZ Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly said the proposals looked workable.

‘‘Zero hours contracts and other forms of casual contracts that are agreed between the employer and employee can be very useful for both parties,’’ he said.