National’s IR policy is bollocks, but could be worse

National have released their “full” industrial relations policy. There’s nothing much there of surprise to readers to my earlier post. Here’s my take on the not-so-bad and the ugly…

The worst bit National confirms its 90-day probation period for new employees of small businesses (and franchisees of large businesses?). But, unlike Wayne Mapp’s private member’s bill, the Nats say there will be:

“… safeguards for workers. Good-faith provisions will still apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions. Rules of natural justice and human rights legislation will apply. Mediation will be available in disputes, and employers won’t be able to hire and fire the same employee every 90 days.”

Should the worst come to the worst, and National be in a position to proceed with this proposal, then there is something here to build on in the drafting and select committee processes. Will dismissal be prevented where a worker is seeking mediation over their statutory conditions such as holidays, sick leave, etc? what about a provision preventing employers from hiring and firing a succession of workers?

Nonetheless, the need for this measure is overstated by the Nats as I have discussed in a recent post. In brief it’s unnecessary and unfair:

• It’s not that difficult to sack non-performing workers.
• There is not the need to involve lawyers anyway.
• There is no hard evidence of any problem with smaller employers being reluctant to hire new staff — the problem has been skill shortages for some years; what, with unemployment rates around 3.5%.
• It impacts in particular on the low-paid and most vulnerable workers with the lowest protections from union membership.
• It allows small employers to opt out of fairness in employment, just when we need higher levels of trust and cooperation in our workplace relations to underpin the workplace reforms necessary to allow high productivity.

The other bad bit The Nats also want to reintroduce Max Bradford’s proposal allowing workers to cash in a week of their annual leave. But, unlike Bradford’s attempt — which may have played a part in his ignominious electoral defeat — “This can be only at the employee’s request and cannot be raised in negotiations for an agreement.”

It might just be okay for the highly skilled IT specialist, say, who is saving to travel the world next year. But I can see a lot of low-paid workers finding their bosses refusing pay rises — and these workers tend to be the ones without union coverage, remember — and subtly or unsubtly suggesting that they (the workers) have other ways of getting a pay rise. Like selling their hols.

On the brighter side(?), National promises to:

• Continue to allow union access to workplaces with an employer’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld.

Does this mean access for recruitment, etc? The word “continue” suggests that it does, but I’d like this clarified. If it does, it’s an important improvement over the ECA.

• Continue to support the social partnership with Business NZ and the Council of Trade Unions to work together on issues of mutual interest.

Nice. Let’s hope this happens.

• Restore workers’ rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union

Predicted, and not likely to make much difference in practice, whatever trade unionists say. Unless, that is employers are allowed to set up bogus collective agreements in order to prevent unions from organising and negotiating genuine collective agreements. This also needs clarifying.

• Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it is properly resourced with properly qualified mediators

Everybody is agreed that the mediation services have been the outstanding success of the ERA. Not sure that there is that much of a problem here, so it’s a little unsettling that National should go to the trouble of putting this in its policy. What do they mean?

• Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross examine before an impartial referee.

On the face of it shouldn’t cause too many problems. Are they going to provide more resource here?

• Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal

Ditto.

• Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of ‘relevant daily pay’.

This disadvantages those workers who earn a large part of their pay through regular overtime. Again, we’re not talking IT professionals here.

To sum up. National says it “believes employment law should treat employees and employers fairly, expand opportunities for those having difficulty getting work, increase flexibility, and let businesses grow.” In practice, its policy is unfair to lower paid workers, will do little if anything to expand job opportunities, increases flexiblity only a little and at the expense of the lowest paid workers in particular, and contains nothing meaningful that will help businesses grow anything except their profits.

The problems that it purports to attack are not the problems that NZ needs to tackle, and it hits the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers hardest. It’s bollocks. But it could be worse.

Update: The Standard comes to not dissimilar conclusions, but Gordon Campbell is closer. The Herald sees National as “largely retaining” the ERA.

Tags: Employment relations, National Party, Workers' rights