John Key.
Employement law is an area fraught with traps for any
political administration. New Zealand employers and employees
have seen major swings in the way employment legislation has
been thrust upon them since 1990 when a newly-elected National
Government dramatically changed the way bosses and workers
interacted.
The Helen Clark-led Labour administration moved some way back
to more union-friendly legislation from 1999. The Government
led by Prime Minister John Key has been relatively timid when
it comes to changing employment law. There have been moves to
again sideline trade unions but it is the recent changes
announced by former labour minister Kate Wilkinson that have
caused some warnings to be issued.
Those warnings, from the left of the political spectrum,
involved the so-called vulnerable workers who work in our
cleaning, catering, orderly and laundry industries. Ms
Wilkinson tinkered with legislation that relates to some of
New Zealand's lowest-paid, often part-time workers who are in
a second job or work the unsociable hours to help with the
family finances. Many of those workers are paid the minimum
wage.
Labour introduced Part 6A into employment law to protect what
its union backers called the low-income workers who rely on
statutory protections for a semblance of fairness. Part 6A
gave thousands of workers the right to retain their jobs and
to be transferred to a new contractor on the same terms of
employment when a business is sold or a contract re-tendered.
Labour and the unions remain concerned that every commercial
cleaner and every kitchen worker employed in schools,
commercial buildings, rest-homes and other businesses whose
work is exposed to repetitive competitive tendering will be
left to the whim of employers.
So it was into that particular cauldron that Ms Wilkinson
stepped. She claimed that a review of Part 6A found there
were significant operational issues around transferring the
entitlements and information of workers to their new
employer.
Now a new labour minister will need to drive the changes
through Parliament. Ms Wilkinson was seen as employer
friendly, at the expense of some workers.
National is unlikely to move away from the changes but a
softening might be expected in the face of strident
opposition. For some employers, the changes do not go far
enough. For worker representatives, the changes are too
harsh.
The review had also found that while larger businesses had
been able to adapt better to the requirements of Part 6A,
small and medium-sized businesses faced greater proportional
costs.
The conundrum appeared to be that a contract was either won
or lost on a tender price. If the tender was won by a new
company, the successful tenderer was obliged to take on the
existing workers from the failed tenderer on the same terms
of employment.
The same obligation applied when an existing business was
sold.
An exemption from those particular obligations was allowed
for businesses with fewer than 20 employees, where the small
to medium-sized business was the incoming employer. Employees
in small and medium enterprises account for about a quarter
of those in affected industries. The difficulty with Part 6A
was the absolute requirement for incoming contractors and
employers to provide continuity of employment for the workers
in the specific industries where a business was restructured
or sold.
Businesses owners throughout the commercial world tender on a
known quantity of what they can achieve from their own
existing operations. Those contracts are won, or lost, on the
ability of an organisation to be at its most cost effective
and efficient. Some of that efficiency relates to the skills
of the business owner but also, the skill and efficiency of
the workers contribute greatly to a successful operation.
Undoubtedly, successful tenderers will need extra staff to
complete their contractual obligations. Taking on some of the
existing workers should be a choice, not a requirement, as
there are already other ways of protecting the wages and
conditions of workers in those industries.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.