Contents Page: NZJER, 2011, 36(2)
Name

Title

Page
NumberErling Rasmussen

NZJER Special Issue: The General
1
Election in New Zealand in 2011

Darien Fenton

Time for a Change in Employment 2-8
Relations ApproachPeter Skilling &Julienne Molineaux
Nigel Haworth

The Minor Parties: Policies and 9-22
Attitudes
A Commentary on Politics and 23-32
Employment Relations in New
Zealand: 2008-2011

The Employment Relations Act 2000:
Alan
Geare,
Fiona a Brief Overview and Suggested
Edgar & Kelly Honey
Changes

Leigh-Ann Harris

Erling Rasmussen &Barry Foster

33-44

Legislation for Participation: an 45-60
Overview of New Zealand’s Healthand Safety Representative Employee
Participation System.
New Zealand Employer Attitudes and 61-76
Behaviours: What are the Implications
for Lifting Productivity Growth?

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 1

NZJER Special Issue: The General Election in New Zealand in
2011
Editorial
It has been a tradition that the New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations publishes a
special issue on employment relations issues in the run up to a General Election. While thisissue follows that tradition, there are two major changes. Under the Mixed Member
Proportion (MMP) electoral system, minor parties and their policy positions have become
more important. As there are at least five or six minor political parties which could have an
influence on the formation of the next Government, a suitable coverage of each party’s
policies could have been a rather extensive. Instead, the Journal editors took the decision tocommission an overview article from two academics. The overview article by Peter Skilling
and Julienne Molineaux covers six political parties and provides a brief insight into theemployment relations position of each party. Secondly, it was not possible to obtain adetailed policy statement from the National Party. We wrote to the Minister of Labour, Kate
Wilkinson in July and were told (by the Minister’s Press Secretary) that a detailed policy
position was not ready and that the Minister would not have the time to do a detailed policy
overview (see instead http://www.national.org.nz/PDFGeneral/Employment Relations_
Policy.pdf). In light of this, the Editors invited Professor Nigel Haworth to write a criticalreview of the National-led Government’s employment relations policies.
Besides the three articles about the minor parties, the policy position of the Labour Party andProfessor Haworth’s review, there is also an article by three academics who seek to address
the key employment relations issues which could have featured in this General Election.
While some of the suggestions by Geare, Edgar and Honey will probably have limited chanceof being implemented, they do highlight the policy tensions and divisions which have been amainstay of New Zealand employment relations for some time. These policy tensions anddivisions are also obvious in the last two articles, though these articles were not part of the
Journal’s General Election coverage. The articles deal with the fundamental issues of
employee representation in occupational health and safety, and the connection between
employer attitudes and the elusive search for a comparative improvement in productivity
levels.
Professor Erling Rasmussen, Co-editor of the NZJERNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8

Time for a Change in Employment Relations Approach
DARIEN FENTON*

Introduction
Labour believes that collective bargaining and industry engagement are essential components to lifting
productivity and wages in New Zealand.
While there were significant changes to the employment relations system under the previous Labour
Governments during 2000-2008, this has not resulted in higher rates of collective bargaining or wages,
and productivity continues to languish. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
now point to low rates of collective bargaining in countries, including New Zealand, as a contributor to
the global financial meltdown (Kumhof and Rancière, 2010; Aidt and Tzannatos, 2002). Put simply, if
workers do not get a fair share through joining together in unions and collective bargaining, they areunable to contribute to the economy and pay their way.
The reforms to the wider New Zealand economy over the last 25 years have seen income at the top end
grow by more than 40% in real terms, but workers on low and middle incomes have struggled. More of
the same policy will deliver more of the same results: wages lagging, productivity falling behind andpeople leaving for better opportunities overseas. It is time for a change of approach.
This article focuses on employment relations, though it is important to stress that those employment
relations changes have to be aligned with wider changes in economic and social policies (where theLabour Party has proposed significant changes recently). In particular, the article focuses on necessarychanges to achieve better wage outcomes and protection of employee rights. These changes are closely
associated with shifting towards the elusive high wage, high skill and highly productive economy where
improved equality and equity are seen a part of the solution (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). As part ofthese aims, the Labour Party is proposing new Industry Standard Agreements to be determined by aWorkplace Commission as well as measures to deal with more volatile working environments and therise in non-standard work. Abolishing the 90-day restrictions on personal grievance rights for new
employees and rolling back recent changes to the Holidays Act are obvious element of such a new
employment relations approach.

Higher Wages
Labour‟s wages policy will help lift wages in New Zealand across the board. We will work with
employers, unions and sector groups to fundamentally change New Zealand‟s economy from a relianceon low wages and longer hours to an investment in more productive workplaces where high trust, highskill and high wages are the success indicators of New Zealand businesses and jobs. A critical first step,*

Darien Fenton is the Labour Party Spokesperson on Labour Issues.
Authorised by Chris Flatt, 160 Willis Street, Wellington.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8
and one which will help the lowest-paid workers directly, is an increase to the minimum wage to $15 anhour, which Labour has long-signalled.
However, more must be done. The experience of the past 20 years shows that New Zealand‟s labour
market arrangements have led to a relative decline in pay for New Zealand workers. Lower pay means
New Zealand business face fewer incentives to lift productivity and investment in the workplace, and inworkers‟ skills and education. It is a vicious cycle – low wages and low productivity - with New
Zealand families bearing the consequences. A critical advantage that Australian families – andAustralian businesses – have over their New Zealand cousins is a fairer labour market. Stronger rights
at work mean decent pay for Australian workers and higher productivity for Australia. Instead of
reducing the Australian-New Zealand pay gap, the gap continues to widen.
Since New Zealand‟s employment relations system was deregulated in the 1980s and early 1990s, wages
have grown at a far slower rate than that of the economy as a whole. The share of the economic pie
going to workers has decreased over the past three decades. The weakening of workers‟ bargaining
power following the Employment Contracts Act 1991 has been a major factor, along with the growing
capital intensity of the economy, according to Council of Trade Union (CTU) economist, Bill
Rosenberg.
From 1992 to 2009, the average real output per worker rose, on average, by 2% a year, but real wages
rose by at less than half that amount (Guthrie and Gawith, 2011). Australia, which has retained astronger collective bargaining environment, has seen a far smaller decline in workers‟ share of theeconomic pie as shown by the graph below.

Source: Rosenberg, 2011

Economic growth will not be successful in closing the wage gap with Australia unless we also have an
employment relations environment that allows workers to gain a greater share of the benefits of thatgrowth.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8
Slow wage growth has been most evident in a number of low-skilled and largely non-unionised
industries. These industries not only have wage rates that are well below the rest of the workforce, but
their wages are also rising at a lower rate. This has led to increasing „wage growth dispersal‟, so thatthose with the highest wages are „pulling away‟ from the rest at the top ens with higher rates of wage
growth, while those with lowest wages are falling ever further behind the median.
This growing gap between wage earners and employers and investors (who are the main beneficiaries ofthe drop in workers‟ share of income), and in particular, the growing wage gap between different
industries, not only makes life a struggle for low and middle income wage workers but also destabilises
the wider economy.
As the wage gap grows, those in the lower and middle parts of the income distribution are encouraged toborrow more to keep up with society‟s standard of living expectations. This excessive borrowing is
unsustainable and eventually results in defaults which mean investors lose money, lending constricts andthe economy shrinks.
The former Labour Government sought to deal with this issue of „wage growth dispersal‟, not throughwages policy, but in part through redistributive government policies (e.g. „Working for Families‟). Suchpolicies delivered real income gains to families who were eligible for them, but there is now a growing
recognition that there are political and practical limits to what can be achieved through after-the-fact
rebalancing of market incomes in this way. It risks becoming a never-ending treadmill, which fails todeal with the underlying causes of inequality.
Efforts to increase union density and bargaining power under the Employment Relations Act 2000
(ERA) have had a limited impact. Union density is very low, with just 9% of the private sector
workforce in a collective agreement and several industries with no union representation (Towner, 2011).
There are only three multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs) in the private sector and it has
proved almost impossible for unions, particularly in lower paid industries such as Aged Care and Retail,to set standards across industries in this way.
Labour‟s policy will implement Industry Standard Agreements, which will be a new and different formof agreement under the ERA. It would join the existing individual, collective and multi employer
collective agreements that the Act already provides for. Industry Standard Agreements would stem fromthe collective agreements already in place in an industry; the “norms” of these collective agreements
would be determined by a Workplace Commission and become the minimum standards that those in thedefined industry must at least meet. The provisions of Industry Standard Agreements will extend to all
workers covered by them (i.e. within the industry the Agreement covers) where a collective agreement
does not exist. Employers and workers will continue to be able to negotiate terms and conditions thatexceed those set out in Industry Standard Agreements, but they will not be able to agree to terms that areless than those in the applicable Industry Standard Agreement. With the Industry Standard Agreement
framework in place, the norms in an industry will become a floor through which nobody‟s terms andconditions can fall. The gains that workers make through collective bargaining will be shared with all
those covered by these new Agreements.
Labour will provide for a six month transition period to occur after the ERA amendments gain Royal
Assent in which no Industry Standard Agreement applications may be made. During this period, theGovernment will provide resources to assist employers and unions in understanding the new law andNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8
building capability for negotiations. Employers and union organisations will be encouraged to discuss
potential standards, build up understanding of key issues and agree on scope of the industry, so where
possible common ground can be reached before negotiations begin.
We expect that there will need to be substantial changes to the ERA and we will work carefully throughthe process of amending the law, but it is necessary to face the fact that New Zealand workers are notpaid enough. This is about putting some rules in place to make sure they can be.

Better Jobs
Labour supports international labour standards and their effective implementation in New Zealand,
including the promotion by the ILO of decent work for all and raising labour and social standards.
The outcome of good labour law should be that any worker who wants to be represented at work, tohave a voice through a union and to be able to influence the wages and conditions applying in theirindustry and at their workplace, should be supported to do so. While Labour is committed to extending
collective bargaining to more workers as the preferred means of setting wages and conditions, we will
also continue to build on a floor of safety net rights for all workers.
Labour will repeal the National Government‟s unfair laws where workers can be fired without cause in
their first 90 days of employment and the restrictions on the access for workers to their unions in theworkplace. We will also restore reinstatement as the primary remedy when an employee has been
unjustifiably dismissed, along with the test of justification. Labour will also amend the Holidays Act to2008 settings to protect the rights of workers to time off for rest and recreation, and ensure that all New
Zealand workers have access to 11 days off with pay for recognised public holidays, including Anzac
and Waitangi Day.
Labour will strengthen collective bargaining by amending the ERA to provide for greater legislative
support, including multi-employer collective bargaining and we will also enable unions and employers
to set up systems in which all workers contribute to the benefits of enterprise and multi-enterprisebargaining.

Changing Working Environments
One of the consequences of the global financial crisis and the changes to work over the past 20 years isthat good jobs have been too easily discarded in the quest for great business efficiency, cost containment
and profit. No worker should be deprived of their economic livelihood without proper consideration of
the consequences, and good jobs should not be simply handed over to the whims of the market and“flexibility”. Labour will defend decent jobs against outsourcing and reduced terms and conditions byproviding for the right to strike when a collective agreement is in force where the employer makes asignificant proposal for restructuring or outsourcing that in effect renders the collective agreement
ineffective.
Labour will also provide certainty for employers and employees in situations of redundancy byimplementing the recommendations of the 2008 Ministerial Advisory Group report on redundancy andNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8
restructuring. It has also been announced that we intend to improve on pay and employment equity
which has been neglected under the National-led Government (Hyman 2011). Finally, we will consider
possible improvements to Paid Parental Leave.

Non-Standard Work
Labour believes that all workers should be protected against harms and risks that are broadly seen as
being unacceptable and below a necessary floor where people should not be required to provide theirlabour. We are concerned at the growth in non-standard work, where large numbers of contractors,
casual and temporary workers effectively have no rights.
We will ensure that workers employed in precarious forms of employment (such as labour hire, casual
employment and contracting) are given similar rights to those in more traditional forms of employment.
We will also investigate and implement best practice statutory support and legal rights for dependent
contractors, including minimum wage protection and other rights. As a minimum, Labour will extend
the right to organise and collectively bargain to contractors who are primarily selling their labour as wellas ensuring an effective and cheap disputes resolution procedure.
Finally, Labour will repeal the National Government changes to the ERA with regards to workers in thefilm and video production industries.

Health and Safety
The level of work related injuries, illness and deaths remains unacceptably high. Labour is committed tocreating safer workplaces and ensuring that injured workers are entitled to compensation and assistance.
In general, we intend to elevate public awareness and responses around workplace deaths and injuries towhere they are taken as seriously as our Road Toll.
Labour will establish a Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand Workplace Health and Safety, which
would be tasked with examining why New Zealand‟s record of workplace accidents and injuries is not
improving, what measures are needed to improve them, how other comparable countries are able to havea lower per worker rate of injury and death and how changes should be implemented.
This could mean moving to a regulatory framework where legislated standards are required, but as aminimum, worker participation, involvement of recognised health and safety delegates and effective
enforcement in the workplace will be fundamental to any change.
Labour will also ensure that any regulatory framework provides for a properly resourced occupational
health and safety inspectorate that has the technical expertise to enforce the legislative requirements.
Labour has already announced its Mine Safety policy which will seek to align the current mining safety
legislation with the Queensland State legislation within a New Zealand context. We will also reinstatecheck inspectors.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 2-8

Concluding remarks
The continuous search for more „flexibility‟ in employment relations has undermined job security,protection of employee rights and decent wage packages for many people. It has yet to bring about any
sustainable improvement in our productivity levels and the relative decline in living standards –particularly compared to Australia – has become a brutal reality for many workers struggling to meetends. No wonder the „grass seems greener on the other side‟.
The Labour Party proposes a different approach, symbolised in a lift of the statutory minimum wage to$15 an hour to overcome the vicious circle of low wages and low productivity. It wants to facilitate
investments in New Zealand workers by restricting low wage and employment conditions throughstrengthening collective bargaining coverage by having a Workplace Commission determining Industry
Standard Agreements. In particular, Labour wants to ensure better protection for employees inprecarious forms of employment. It also wants to address the poor record of workplace accidents,
injuries and illnesses by improving worker participation and by properly resource inspection and advice
functions.
In line with a new approach to employment relations, Labour will repeal several of the National-led
Government‟s recent public policy changes. That includes the 90-day restriction on personal grievancesof new employees, restoring holiday entitlements and abolishing changes to employment in the film andvideo production industries. It is definitely time for a change of approach!

References
Aidt, T. and Tzannatos, Z. (2002). Union and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global
Environment. The World Bank: Washington DC.
Guthrie, S. and Gawith, A. (Apr 26, 2011). Subsiding Income Stunts Growth. New Zealand Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10721469
Hyman, P. (2011). Pay Equity and Equal Employment Opportunity in New Zealand: Developments
2008/2010 and Evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 36(1): 65-75
Kumhof, M. and Rancière, R. (2010). Leveraging Inequality. Finance and Development. 47(4): 28-31.
Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/12/pdf/kumhof.pdf
Rosenberg, G. (2011, Jun). Economic Bulletin 125 – How Far Are Our Wages Behind Australia’s?
Retrieved from http://union.org.nz/economicbulletin125
Towner, R. (2011, Sep). Private Sector: a Decline in Wage Increases and Collective Coverage.
Retrieved from http://www.bellgully.com/resources/resource.02936.asp
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Society Stronger.
Allen Lane: New York

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

The Minor Parties: Policies and Attitudes
PETER SKILLING* and JULIENNE MOLINEAUX**
Abstract
In 15 years of MMP Government in New Zealand, no party has ever been successful in governing alone.
There are good reasons, then – National‟s current dominance in the polls notwithstanding – to assume that
one or more of the minor parties will be included in governing arrangements after the General Election on
November 26. This paper presents a descriptive summary of the employment relations policy positions of
the six minor parties (ACT, the Green Party, the Mana Party, the Maori Party, New Zealand First andUnited Future) that have some chance of success at this year‟s Election, to assess the influence they might
have on subsequent policy formation. The summary, based primarily on relevant publicly available
documents, also considers the factors likely to influence how each party might engage with others.

Introduction
The make-up of the next Government is uncertain. While the National Party has polled above 50% since2009 (Pundit, 2011), it is far from clear that this support will translate into a majority in the November 26
General Election. Support for incumbent Governments can evaporate during Election year as events unfold(Levine and Roberts, 2003); in addition, voting preferences can be volatile with many voters making theirdecision close to Election Day (Vowles, 2003). National has indicated that it will make further changes to
employment laws if re-elected (Trevett, 2011a), but its ability to implement any changes will, most likely,
depend on support from other parties. Labour has indicated a desire to raise the minimum wage and toreverse the 90-day trial period for new workers (Fenton, 2011), but unless it can boost its own support by an
extraordinary amount, Labour will need support partners to form a new Government and pass legislation. To
date, no party under MMP has been able to form a majority single-party Government.
It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that governing arrangements after November‟s Election will be built
around agreements between one of the major parties and one or more support parties. With this in mind, thisarticle surveys the explicit policies and the underlying attitudes towards employment relations held by theminor parties that are most likely to be represented in Parliament after this year‟s Election. We present thissurvey in (mostly) alphabetical order, to avoid the possibility of suggesting priority. It is based on a range of
documentary data: publicly available statements taken from the parties‟ websites, public speeches made bymembers of the parties, and Parliamentary records of debates of relevant issues. The parties considered here
were also given a chance to respond to a standard set of questions put to them by the authors, although only
the Green Party responded. This failure to respond is entirely understandable, given the constraints on thetime and resources available to minor parties, especially in an Election year.
There are five minor parties in Parliament that will be contesting the 2011 General Election: the ACT Party,
the Green Party, the Mana Party, the Māori Party, and the United Future Party. We survey each of these
below, along with New Zealand First, who narrowly missed out on re-election in 2008 and is campaigningagain in 2011. Our survey is primarily a descriptive piece in which we set out the parties‟ positions asobjectively as possible. Where appropriate, it derives a degree of cohesiveness from the observation that the*

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology.
Lecturer, Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology.

**

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

policy prescriptions of political actors are logically connected to the ways in which those actors construct
and represent the nature of the relevant policy „problem‟ (Fischer, 2003; Stone, 2002).
We focus, then, on how the parties under consideration construct the employment relations „problem‟, andassess how their policy prescriptions make sense within a broader understanding of the social and politicalworld. We note, however, the limitations of this focus in fully apprehending the decisions of some of theminor parties. Within a governing arrangement, their values and ideologies are often in tension withpragmatic considerations of what they can and should demand of larger parties. Unless employment
relations policies are crucial to a party‟s core beliefs – as they appear to be with ACT, the Greens and Mana
– there is every possibility that a minor party will compromise in this policy area for the sake of influence inanother. Or, as witnessed by the Māori Party since 2008, a minor party may support a major party in
Government, oppose its employment relations policies but, for lack of influence, still see those policies passthrough Parliament.
If one or more of the minor parties is included in governing arrangements after the Election, the included
parties will have achieved what Muller and Strom (1999) call their “office-seeking goal”. While a presenceat the „top table‟ of Government confers a certain amount of prestige, exposure and financial benefit, it is
not the only aim of political parties. As Muller and Strom (1999) argue, parties are also motivated by their“policy-making” and their “vote-seeking goals” (see also Miller, 2005). The tensions between these threegoals are felt in a particularly acute way by minor parties for whom a formal arrangement with a larger party
offers more influence but no guarantee of success in achieving its “policy-making goal”. Being formallyaligned with a larger party includes undertaking to support that party on matters of supply and confidence,
which involves voting for the major party‟s budget. The budget process is intertwined with policy
programmes as programmes typically require money; thus the minor party may find itself tacitly supporting
policies that it opposes (see Sharples, 2011). This support may well threaten the smaller party‟s long-term“vote seeking” goal if they are perceived as too closely aligned with a policy agenda that diverges from theexpectations of their constituency.
Being a support party, thus, carries definite dangers for the long-term prospects of a small party. The historyof MMP Government in New Zealand is filled with such cautionary tales, including the rise and fall ofUnited Future, New Zealand First and, most dramatically, the Alliance. In a contemporary example, theMāori Party is currently contemplating the double-edged sword of its participation in governing
arrangements since 2008. While the Party defends its relationship with National as the best way to exercise
influence and secure “gains for our people” (Pita Sharples as cited in Trevett, 2009), it has come at a highprice. The Māori Party has faced criticism from those who see it as enabling (through their annual support
for the Government‟s budget) a right-wing policy agenda that contradicts its stated commitment to greater
equality (Godfery, 2010), even when that agenda – as in the case of employment relations policy – hasproceeded in the face of Māori Party opposition.

The Minor Party Landscape
ACT, the Māori Party and United Future are currently in a governing relationship with National, providing
votes for confidence and supply in exchange for some policy influence and Ministerial posts outside
Cabinet. Each party has its own agreement with National that outlines which policies both must support, theextent of the minor party‟s freedom to negotiate support on a case by case basis, and the conditions underwhich they may speak against National‟s policies (ACT, 2008c; Māori Party, 2008a; United Future, 2008).
National, being only four votes short of a majority, can pass legislation with the support of either the Māori
Party (who represent four votes), or the ACT Party (five votes). This support arrangement has enabled
National to downplay the fears of its moderate voters about the influence of ACT while simultaneously
increasing National‟s bargaining power when negotiating with its support parties (Smith, 2010). National

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

has been able to pass a wider range of policy by appealing to one or the other of these two very different
parties. The arrangement, however, is not always a comfortable one for ACT or the Māori Party. The major
governing party after the 2011 Election may not enjoy so much flexibility.
2011 gave rise to two political events involving minor parties, both of which have the potential to alter the
results on Election night. The ACT Party experienced a coup in which Party leader and Minister outside
Cabinet Rodney Hide was replaced by a non-MP, former National Party leader Don Brash. Claiming hecould increase ACT‟s polling, Brash was installed as extra-Parliamentary leader. Hide will not stand again
in the Epsom seat, an electorate he won for the ACT Party in 2005 and 2008. Because ACT has polled
below the 5% threshold since the 2002 Election, Hide‟s success in this electorate has been the key to theParty‟s Parliamentary representation. In polls to date, Brash‟s leadership has not significantly improved
ACT‟s fortunes (Pundit, 2011); furthermore, polling indicates that unless Prime Minister John Key
explicitly instructs National supporters in Epsom to cast their candidate vote for ACT, ACT will fail to win
the seat and thus fail to return to Parliament (Grafton, 2011). Brash‟s history on race-based issues has thepotential to further complicate any governing arrangements that include the Māori Party.
The second upheaval in the minor party landscape was Hone Harawira‟s resignation, under threat of
expulsion, from the Māori Party following his continued criticism of the Party‟s relationship with National.
Harawira established the Mana Party in April and his subsequent win in the Te Tai Tokerau by-election inJune gives the Party a strong chance of on-going representation in Parliament. Prospects for the two Māori
parties in the General Election will depend on their relationship leading up to poll day. Strategic voting in
the Māori electorates could potentially result in the Mana and Māori Parties winning as many as 9 MPs
between them (Farrar, 2011), giving them a larger bargaining position for policy designed to advance Māoriinterests. Such a Māori-Mana bloc could determine the make-up of the next Government, especially if
United Future and ACT fail to win more than one or two seats. While such an outcome might seem
mutually beneficial, personal animosity and policy differences between Harawira and the Māori Party seemcertain to prevent such collaboration (New Zealand Herald, 2011), possibly enabling Labour to recapturesome of the Māori seats.
These political upheavals increase the difficulty of predicting the policy outcomes of the Election.
Table One: Summary of ER Positions of the Minor Parties

ACT
Party

ER policy
closest towhich major
party*
National

Current
Numberof MPsERA Bill(No. 2)

Holidays
Amendment
Bill

5

SupportSupportERA (Film
ProductionWork) Bill

Minimum Wage

YouthMinimum
Wage

Support

Opposed to increases to minimum
wage (ACT Party, 2011) and scepticalof the very concept (ACT, 2008b)
Increase “to 66% of the average wage,
with an immediate increase to $15 anhour” (Green Party, 2011b)
Increase to $15/hour (Māori Party,
2008b)
Increase to $15/hour, and to 2/3 of theaverage wage by April 2013 (Mana
Party, 2011b)
Increase to $15/hour (New ZealandFirst, n.d.)
UnclearSupport (butunnecessary if
the minimum
wage scrapped)
Oppose

Green
Party

Labour9

OpposeOpposeOppose

Maori
Party
Mana
Party

Labour4

OpposeOpposeLabour

1

Oppose**Oppose**Support (3 votes
only)
Oppose**NZ First

Labour----UnitedFutureNational

1

SupportSupportSupport

OpposeOpposeUnclearUnclear(Green Party, 2011b)* See also additional comments and caveats in the text.
** The Mana Party did not exist in parliament at the time of these bills. Its position is presumed on the basis of Harawira‟sspeeches at the time and the party‟s stated positions.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

The ACT Party
The ACT Party was established to promote the economic liberalisation policies that Roger Douglas began as
Finance Minister of New Zealand from 1984 to 1988, commonly known as Rogernomics (Reid, 2003).
Since the leadership (from 1996-2004) of Richard Prebble, ACT has adopted some populist social
conservative policies such as a tough line on crime (Edwards, 2010), but its approach to employment
relations remains with the Party‟s classical liberal roots.
Following the 2008 General Election, ACT entered into a confidence and supply agreement with theminority National-led Government. It gained two Cabinet positions (reduced to one following the leadershipchange in May 2011), neither of which was in the employment relations area. The confidence and supply
agreement listed seven policy areas that the two parties agreed to move on; none of these had a strong
employment relations focus.
Although ACT‟s representation in Parliament is small (five MPs), they have had some influence over
Government policy and have been supporters of the more right-wing policies proposed by National. ACT‟ssupport has enabled National to pass legislation that its other main supply and confidence partner, the Māori
Party, has objected to: the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Holidays Amendment
Bill, for example.
ACT constructs the employment relations problem as Government getting in the way of free negotiations
between employers and employees. There is an unspoken assumption that all parties to such negotiations
have equal power. ACT views the employment relationship as being one of contract law, in which
The freedom to offer one‟s labour as one see fit is a fundamental right. To deny adults freedom ofcontract in the name of „protecting them‟ from exploitation, demeans and patronises all workers andall employers (ACT, 2008b).
There is an assumption that this increased freedom will lead to greater efficiency for firms, and that firms
will pass the benefit of this greater productivity onto their workers. As part of their 2008 Election policy,
ACT explained the chain of events from freedom to higher wages like this: “Allow freedom of contract tomake it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers…. Business runs better with right staff.
Workers and company earn more” (ACT, 2008a. The authors‟ emphasis).
ACT frames its employment relations policies as breaking down privilege and benefiting the disadvantaged.
ACT supports the 90-day trial period for new workers as it gives the vulnerable and the disadvantaged an
opportunity to get a start in the job market. ACT claims opposition to trial periods protecting existing
workers and locking out the unemployed, especially Māori and Pacific workers who might find work if
employers could hire them on trial (Douglas, 2010). Similarly, ACT supports a lower minimum wage foryoung workers, claiming youth rates will help young people, who are disproportionately unemployed, get a“foothold on the job ladder” (ACT, 2011). ACT has been openly critical of National for not adopting ayouth minimum wage, claiming current subsidies for youth work schemes would be unnecessary if youth
wages were in force (Douglas, 2011). The Party‟s employment relations policy encapsulates welfare policy,
rewarding and incentivising work over benefits by lowering the tax that workers pay and placing time limit
and workfare requirements on welfare for the able-bodied (ACT, 2008b).
ACT has not been able to use its time in Government and its policy wins to increase its popularity. There
have been a series of messy personality-based scandals since 2008, this year‟s unconventional coup and theextraordinary situation whereby no current ACT MP is seeking re-election. These upheavals and theunpopularity of some of ACT‟s policies – such as the creation of the Auckland super-city – have not helped
its electoral chances. Currently polling well below 5%, ACT almost certainly needs to win Epsom in order

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

to return to Parliament (Pundit, 2011), and has selected former Auckland mayor John Banks to run for theseat. A tactical deal between National and ACT to not split the right-wing vote in Epsom and marginal
electorates would increase both Parties‟ electoral chances (Bennett, 2011). Such a deal between Nationaland ACT makes sense; if ACT does not return to Parliament, or returns with only a small clutch of MPs,
National may be dependent on the Māori Party for Government formation, lessening its chances ofprogressing the employment relations policy agenda it has signalled for its second term.

The Green Party
While the Green Party was formed in 1990 1 around an explicit environmentalist agenda, it has always
included a significant left-wing, social justice element (Green Party, n.d. a). The Party has consistently
advocated for the rights of workers, and for the regulation of employment relations to ameliorate the powerof employers and the supposed demands of a flexible market economy.
The Green Party is currently the biggest of New Zealand‟s minor parties, represented in Parliament by nine
members. Indeed, it was recognised this year by the Electoral Commission as occupying a unique space in
New Zealand politics, with its voter support over an extended period of time distinguishing it from the otherminor parties (Electoral Commission, 2011; Green Party, 2011). The Party‟s size has allowed it to develop
and articulate relatively comprehensive positions across a range of policy areas. It has also allowed it tohave a representative on the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee, along with five National
and three Labour members.
The Party envisages society in general, and employment relations in particular, as marked by conflict andunequal relations of power, such that the interests of labour and capital are often opposed to each other. In
their minority view (co-authored with the Labour Party) on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No2), the Green Party argued that the legislation represented an unfair and unjustified shift “towards theinterest of employers at the expense of employees”, and that it was at odds with the Employment RelationsAct‟s acknowledgment of “the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships” (Transport andIndustrial Relations Committee, 2010: 5). In Parliament, Industrial Relations spokesperson Keith Locke (ascited in NZ Parliament, 2010c: 15663) argued that the Bill “will give more power to employers against
workers and against members of unions” (the authors‟ emphasis).
In Parliament, the Green Party has consistently voted against the Government‟s employment relations
policies. In their minority view on the ER Amendment Bill (No 2), Labour and the Greens described someof its provisions as “supposed solutions to problems that do not exist”, citing Treasury and the Ministry of
Economic Development‟s complaint of “the lack of robust evidence on the impact of the proposed
amendments” (Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, 2010: 5). Locke (as cited in NZ Parliament,
2010a) argued further that the Bill‟s provisions also ignored advice and concerns voiced by the Departmentof Labour. According to Locke (2011, Personal Communication), the Greens‟ top employment relations
policy priority is to “raise the minimum wage – initially to $15 an hour and then progressively over a four
year period to two thirds of the average wage”. Beyond this, they would seek to enact a range of measuresdesigned to “improve collective bargaining, and widen the number of workers covered by collective
agreements, as a mechanism to reduce inequality in New Zealand” (K. Locke, Personal Communication –10 June, 2011). The Greens have also drafted a Bill to promote gender pay equity (Delahunty, 2011) thatgained unexpected prominence amid the public furore over statements made by – and the subsequentdismissal of – Alasdair Thompson, Chief Executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association(Northern) (Delahunty, 2011).
The most comprehensive statement of the Party‟s approach to employment relations issues can be found in
the Industrial Relations Policy on its website (Green Party, n.d. b). This policy is entirely consistent with the

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

stance adopted in Parliament. In this document, the Greens situate employment relations at the heart of theirpolitical vision, stating that “decent pay and working conditions, a meaningful and secure job, and a safe
working environment” are “hallmarks of a fair and decent society.” Work is understood not as a system ofcontractual arrangements between parties, but in more aspirational terms. Work, it is said, should be“meaningful” and reflect workers‟ individual and cultural preferences; jobs should be “secure [and]empowering.” Against the “inherent potential for inequality of power between employers and employees”,
the Greens insist on the facilitation of “workplace democracy and collective organisation”. In theiralternative vision, “workers, employers, and unions should be involved in making decisions about issues intheir workplaces, the economy, and the environment” (all quotes in this paragraph from Green Party, n.d. b).
Polling consistently and comfortably over the 5% threshold, the Greens will probably return to Parliament.
While the Party has not ruled out supporting a National-led Government (NZPA, 2011b), their hopes for
substantial legislative influence after the 2011 Election rely on a centre-left bloc getting over 50% of theseats. At the time of writing, this seems unlikely.

Māori Party
The Māori Party was formed in 2004 in opposition to the Labour-led Government‟s passage of theForeshore and Seabed Act (FSA). In 2005, the Party won four of the seven Māori seats (Electoral
Commission, 2005), and in 2008, this increased to five of the seven (Electoral Commission, 2008).
However, the Māori Party‟s share of the party vote throughout the country was low at 2.12% and 2.39%
respectively, with many voters in the Māori seats casting their party votes for Labour. Key policies of the
Māori Party include the repeal of FSA, the promotion of the Treaty of Waitangi, support for Māori
representation, and policies that advance tino rangatiratanga. Māori Party policies are explained in terms of
traditional values. For example, support for “the alienated and the dispossessed” (Pita Sharples, in New
Zealand Parliament, 19 May 2011), and those on low incomes (Māori Party, 2008b), are explained using
principles of manaakitanga (hospitality or charity) and kotahitanga (unity).
The Māori Party has voted against most, but not all, of National‟s employment relations changes. Against
claims that the 90-day trial period for new employees would help the young, the unskilled and Māori andPasifika gain employment, the Māori Party opposed the policy. Co-leader Tariana Turia (in New ZealandParliament, 4 August 2010) doubted that the trial period made it any easier for Māori to overcome the“brown barrier” of systematic racial discrimination in employment, and MP Rahui Katene (as cited in NZ
Parliament, 2010c) noted its potential to make work more precarious for existing employees. In the same
speech, Katene quoted a letter from an education union, who wrote, “This amendment will further turn thebalance of power away from employees, in particular young and vulnerable employees, and those employedin low unionised work sites” (p. 15666). In speaking against the Holidays Amendment Bill, Katene (ibid.)further stressed the unequal power between employers and employees, expressing concern that “there are nosafeguards against employers wielding undue pressure on an employee to cash up their leave and sell away
their holiday.” She also supported the need for workers to have time off work to rest and spend with theirwhānau (extended family).
The major piece of Government-sponsored employment relations legislation that the Māori Party has
supported this term is the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill, which
designated film production workers as contractors not employees. Māori Party support for this Bill was
based on the assumption that it would create jobs, a key policy platform for the Party. Their support,
however, came with the proviso that they were “... on high alert to prevent the unscrupulous treatment ofworkers or conditions that might serve to erode the integrity of [New Zealand‟s] reputation” (Katene ascited in NZ Parliament, 2010b: 15052).

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

The Māori Party achieved one of its founding goals by negotiating the repeal of the FSA with the National
Party. The nature of that Act‟s replacement – the Marine and Coastal Areas Act – and the Māori Party‟stacit support for other items on National‟s agenda, has caused dissatisfaction with some supporters(Godfery, 2011). The most notable expression of this dissatisfaction was Hone Harawira‟s departure fromthe Party, and the resulting establishment of the Mana Party. If the Māori Party continues its relationshipwith National after this year‟s Election, then these tensions will only be compounded as National has
indicated a more radical agenda for its second term. On the question of a minimum wage, for example,
National‟s consideration of a youth wage and ACT‟s preference for the removal of the minimum wage
altogether (ACT, 2008b) stand directly opposed to the Māori Party‟s support (in line with the positions ofLabour and the Greens) for an increase to $15 an hour.

Mana PartyAs the newest of the parties considered here, it is difficult to assess not just the policies of the Mana Party
but also their prospects for electoral success. The Mana Party might expect to draw support from thoseMāori disaffected by the Maritime and Coastal Areas Bill and, more broadly, from those in favour of greater
self-determination and ownership rights for Māori. Yet, the nascent Party has also positioned itself as thechampion of those marginalised in socio-economic terms, specifically the poor and the unemployed. A
number of social justice and worker rights activists, such as Sue Bradford, Matt McCarten and John Minto,
have been associated with the early development of the Party; Bradford is standing as a candidate for Manain the general electorate of Waitakere.
Mana‟s position, derived from public speeches, interviews and its website, is consistently informed by avision of society divided along class lines in which Governments support the dominance of the capitalowning class through “economic policies that drive people into poverty, and then penalise them for beingpoor” (Harawira, 2011). Accordingly, the current Government is charged with,giving tax breaks to the rich, bailing out failed finance companies, selling off our natural resources,
turning prisons into private profit ventures, and spending $36 million on a yacht race on the otherside of the world, while ordinary New Zealanders are starving, workers are being forced into slavery
by the 90-day bill, and Māori rights are being drowned in the Raukumara Basin (Mana Party,
2011a).
In more concrete terms, Mana commits itself to the pursuit of full employment, to increasing the minimum
wage to $15 an hour immediately, and to two-thirds of the average wage by April 2013, to opposing the
introduction of a youth minimum wage, to giving workers “greater bargaining power to negotiate wages andconditions with their employers” and to opposing “changes that reduce the bargaining power of workers andunions” (Mana Party 2011b). The Party promises to provide a “natural home to a growing number ofordinary Kiwis cast adrift by this National government” and to promote “the pride and dignity of workers
who built this country into the special place that we all call home” (Mana Party, 2011a). Harawira has also
stated his intention to ensure “a decent days wage for a decent days work”, to “overturn National‟s 90-day
Slave Bill” and to “support the rebuilding of a strong union base to give workers back the rights they‟ve lost
over the last 20 years” (Harawira, 2011).
Having won the Te Tai Tokerau by-election in June, Mana is likely to be back in Parliament after the
General Election. Judging by the Party‟s origins and early rhetoric, they are unlikely to support any
National-led Government. Phil Goff has stated that Labour would not work with any Party led by Harawira,citing his unstable record in Government and his extreme and offensive statements (NZPA, 2011a).
Whatever their status after November, Mana can be depended on to oppose any initiatives that erode thesecurity and the status of workers in employment relations. The Party may well find it appealing to stay

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

outside of governing arrangements in order to maintain maximum freedom to speak against the initiatives of
any Government.

New Zealand First
From a high-point of 17 MPs after the 1996 Election, New Zealand First‟s support has steadily declined.
Having become dependent for their Parliamentary presence on Winston Peters winning the Tauranga seat,
the Party disappeared from Parliament in 2008 when he failed to do so. Current polling suggests that New
Zealand First is attracting 2.5% support which, while significantly above most of the other parties
considered here, is still well below the 5% threshold (Pundit, 2011). With insufficient concentration of
support in an electorate, the Party faces an uphill struggle to return to Parliament in 2011.
New Zealand First‟s founding principles include an appeal to economic nationalism (Miller, 2003), andtheir 2011 employment policies are framed in terms of developing the local economy and the local
manufacturing sector (New Zealand First, n.d.). Its stated positions fit well with a broader pitch to those„ordinary New Zealanders‟ who feel disenfranchised and alienated by social and economic change. New
Zealand First advocates a limited engagement with globalisation, supports New Zealand ownership of key
assets, and opposes trade deals with countries that have lower wage structures than New Zealand. While its
guiding principles espouse the ideal of “less government”, New Zealand First also suggests a more active
approach when it states that “employment of New Zealanders is our first planning priority”, and that “[h]igh
unemployment is not acceptable”. The Party aims to train unskilled New Zealanders to fill skill gaps,
promising that immigration will cease to be used as an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ ourown people.” It also believes that wages in New Zealand are too low, and argues that lifting the minimum
wage to $15 an hour and lifting “all our income” through “using all our resources and our people, to benefit
us” will decrease the exodus of skilled workers to Australia (New Zealand First, n.d.).
It is unlikely that New Zealand First will return to Parliament this Election. Even if they do, they are
unlikely to have any influence over the policies of a National-led Government following John Key‟semphatic refusal to work with leader Winston Peters (Trevett, 2011b). Their polices have more in common
with the Labour Party and others who support lifting the minimum wage and rejecting the sale of state
assets.

United Future
The United Future Party (originally the United Party) was established in 1995 as a centrist party in the new
MMP environment (Aimer, 2003). Formed by seven existing National and Labour MPs, the Party was
designed to be to work “with either of the major parties in government, to blunt their extremes and knock
off their rough edges” (Dunne, 2007). While United Future has had a presence in Parliament since the first
MMP Election in 1996, this has largely been due to leader Peter Dunne‟s hold on the Ōhariu electorate:
2002 was the only Election where it exceeded the 5% threshold. Despite its low polling, Dunne has secured
a Ministerial post in three of the five MMP administrations (Aimer, 2003; Edwards, 2010) and, with the
exception of 1999-2002, the Party has had some sort of arrangement with the Government of the day.
As in many other policy areas, United Future frames the employment relations problem with the need formore common sense, practical support for small businesses, community groups and individuals. Its
employment relations policies include reviewing “employment law to ensure that it reflects the reality of
workplace relations in small businesses”, but policy available on the Party website does not clarify what thisNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

means (United Future, n.d. a). Many of United Future‟s employment policies are aimed at assisting the new
migrant community, older people, the disabled and the unskilled gain work (United Future, n.d. b).
While describing himself as centrist, and he has demonstrated the capacity to work with both National andLabour, Dunne appears more comfortable with National‟s employment relations policies. Despite being aLabour Party MP in the 1990s, Dunne did not oppose the Employment Contract Act 1991 (Aimer, 2003).
As a Minister outside of Cabinet since the 2008 Election, Dunne has voted with the National-led
Government in its employment relations reforms. He did not speak in the Employment Relations
Amendment Bill (No 2) or the Holidays Amendment Bill debates, but his Party has promoted the 90-day
trial period as a way for youth and migrants to enter the work force (United Future, 2011). Dunne voted insupport of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill in 2010, but later attacked
the Government for misleading him over the role of the unions in the stand-off (Dunne, 2010).
A rolling average of major polls puts United Future‟s support at 0.6%, the lowest of all the parties
considered here (the Mana Party was still too new to be included) (Pundit, 2011). As such, the Party‟selectoral prospects this year are dependent once again on Dunne retaining his Ōhariu seat. This is by nomeans certain as Dunne‟s support has fallen in recent elections: he won the seat in 2008 with a 1006 votemajority and only 32.6% of the vote. If it is returned to Parliament, United Future is unlikely to adopt astrong stance on employment relations issues, although it would seem that the Party will be more
comfortable supporting a National-led rather than a Labour-led Government.

Conclusion
It is difficult to predict coalition or support arrangements after the Election let alone how these will impact
on employment relations policies. To do so would require not only prescience about how seats and votes
will fall, but the subsequent outcome of negotiations around governing and policies. Some parties, such as
ACT, the Greens and Mana have located employment relations near the centre of a coherent ideologicalposition, and they are more likely to prioritise a strong stand on these issues. Other parties do not place thesame amount of stress on employment relations, and may be more willing to make strategic compromises inthat policy area in return for other gains.
Complexities in prediction notwithstanding, it is worth paying attention to the minor parties and thestrategic challenges they face in gaining re-election and policy traction as their positions may well be
influential. While entering into a governing relationship offers a minor party no guarantee of achieving its
preferred policy position, in employment relations or any other area, one or more of the parties consideredin this article may well be able to extract policy wins from their larger partners if the numbers dictate and ifthey negotiate skillfully. In the process, the small parties will have to weigh up the advantages of being in
Government – including a certain amount of prestige, exposure and financial benefit as well as policy gains– alongside the inevitable dangers of being perceived as too closely aligned with a policy agenda that may
diverge from the expectations of its constituency.

Notes
1

The party was, however, a part of the five-party Alliance from 1991 to 1997

References

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

ACT (ACT Party of New Zealand). (2008a). 20 Point Plan: Labour. Retrieved fromhttp://www.act.org.nz/plan
ACT. (2008b). ACT Employment Policy. Retrieved from http://www.act.org.nz/files/plan/policy12.pdf
ACT. (2008c). National-ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.act.org.nz/
ACT. (2011). Open Letter to New Zealanders on Youth Rates, 29 June 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.act.org.nz/open-letter-to-new-zealanders-on-youth-rates
Aimer, P. (2003). United Future. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (3rd ed.) (pp.
293-302). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, A. (2011, July 29). ACT Look for Deal to Leave Marginal Seats Alone. New Zealand Herald (20July 2011). Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10739621
Delahunty, C. (2011). Alasdair Goes, but Gender Pay Gap Still Needs Action. Press release, 6 July 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/alasdair-goes-gender-pay-gap-still-needs-action
Douglas, R. (2010). Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 19 August 2010. Retrieved from http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/Employment-Relations-Amendment-Bill-No-2-First-Reading.pdf
Douglas, R. (2011). National Has ‘No Answer’ for Youth Jobs. Press release, 5 May 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.act.org.nz/posts/national-has-%E2%80%98no-answer%E2%80%99-for-youth-jobs
Dunne, P. (2007). Speech to Plimmerton Rotary Club, 23 November 2007. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/peter-dunne-speech-plimmerton-rotary-club/
Dunne, P. (2010, December 22). MP Wants Answer over Motive for Hobbit Laws. The Dominion Post.
Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4483981/MP-wants-answer-over-motive-forHobbit-laws
Edwards, B. (2010). Minor Parties. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (5th ed.). (pp.
522-536). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Electoral Commission. (2005). Official Count Results – Overall Status. Retrieved fromhttp://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2005/partystatus.html
Electoral Commission. (2008). Official Count Results – Overall Status. Retrieved fromhttp://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html
Electoral Commission. (2011). Decision of the Electoral Commission on the Allocation of Time and Moneyfor Eligible Political Parties for the Broadcasting of Election Programmes for the 2011 General Election.
Retrieved from http://www.elections.org.nz/files/Broadcasting_allocation_decision_31_May_2011.pdf
Farrar, D. (2011, July 1). The Might of Mana Maori. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10735692

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

Fenton, D. (2011). A Bleak Outlook for Workers. Press release, 8 June 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1106/S00131/a-bleak-outlook-for-workers.htm
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Godfery, M. (2010). Evaluating The Maori Party - Part 2. Maui Street blog, 30 November 2010. Retrieved
from http://mauistreet.blogspot.com/2010/11/evaluating-maori-party-part-2.html
Godfery, M. (2011). The Mana Party. Maui Street blog, 3 May 2011. Retrieved fromhttp://mauistreet.blogspot.com/2011/05/mana-party.html
Grafton, T. (2011, October 21). Epsom Poll: Hide wins similar support as Banks. Key will decide ACT‟s
Parliamentary future. The National Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/epsompoll-hide-wins-similar-support-banks-key-will-decide-acts-parliamentary-future-102794
Green Party. (n.d.a). The History of the Green Party. Retrieved from http://www.greens.org.nz/page/historygreen-party
Green Party. (n.d.b). Industrial Relations Policy: A Sustainable Working Life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greens.org.nz/policy/industrial-relations-policy-sustainable-working-life
Green Party (of Aotearoa New Zealand). (2011a). Greens in Category of Their Own. Press release, 1 June
2011. Retrieved from http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-category-their-own
Green Party (of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2011b). Industrial Relations Policy Summary. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greens.org.nz/policysummary/industrial-relations-policy-summary
Harawira, H. (2011). Integrity and Courage. Speech to the launch of the Mana Party, 30 April 2011.
Retrieved 5 May 2011 from http://mana.net.nz/speeches/speech-to-the-launch-of-mana-hone-harawira/
Levine, S. and Roberts, N. (2003). The 2002 General Election. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government
and Politics (3rd ed.). (pp. 219-232). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Mana Party. (2011a). Mana, the Movement of the People. Retrieved from http://mana.net.nz/
Mana Party. (2011b). Policy. Retrieved from http://mana.net.nz/policy/
Māori Party. (2008a). Confidence and Supply Agreement Between Us and the National Party. Retrieved
from http://www.Maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=cms&id=153&p=national-party-and-the-m%C4%81oriparty-agreement.html
Māori Party. (2008b). Election Policy 2008. Retrieved fromhttp://www.maoriparty.org/index.php?pag=cms&id=130&p=election-policy.html
Miller, R. (2003). New Zealand First. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (3rd ed.).
(pp.261-273). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Miller, R. (2005). Party Politics in New Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

Muller, W. C. and Strom, K. (1999). Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe
Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
New Zealand Herald. (2011, July 14). Hone Pact „Doomed from Start‟. New Zealand Herald (14 July 2011).
Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738347
New Zealand First. (n.d.). New Zealand First Policies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies2.html
New Zealand Parliament. (2010a, August 19). Parliamentary Debates. HANSARD. 51(665): 13285-13331.
Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C9BDF442-08A5-4024-835F75865B8C0030/164576/49HansD_201008195.pdf
New Zealand Parliament. (2010b, October 29). Parliamentary Debates. HANSARD. 58(668): 15007-15064.
Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/929A1EA5-3505-4CFA-B4E6EC1FB7BEFEAC/180627/49HansD_201010299.pdf
New Zealand Parliament. (2010b, November 23). Parliamentary Debates. HANSARD. 61(669): 1563715704. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/173671CE-A602-4F04-9CA2D557DFB0C595/187877/49HansD_201011291.pdf
NZPA. (2011a, March 14). Goff Rules out Working with Harawira Party. TV3 News (14 March 2011).
Retrieved from http://www.3news.co.nz/Goff-rules-out-working-with-Harawiraparty/tabid/419/articleID/202367/Default.aspx
NZPA. (2011b, June 5). Greens won‟t rule-out supporting National. The National Business Review (5 June2011). Retrieved from http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greens-wont-rule-out-supporting-national-ck-94771
Pundit. (2011). Poll of Polls. Retrieved from http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/poll-of-polls
Reid, N. (2003). ACT. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (3rd ed.). (pp. 274-282).
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Sharples, P. (2011, May 19). Budget maintains momentum for Māori Affairs
Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-maintains-momentum-m%C4%81ori-affairs
Smith, K. (2010). Māori Party. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (5th ed.). (pp. 509521). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox and Political Reason (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. (2010). Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2).
Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A2D8A22C-339F-45E9-854DF0B3A9C1E5CE/173023/DBSCH_SCR_4898_EmploymentRelationsAmendmentBillNo2.pdf
Trevett, C. (2009, May 29). Budget 09: Positive Spin Placed on Miserly Haul. New Zealand Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10575158
Trevett, C. (2011a, June 09). Labour Law Changes a Campaign Plank, says Key. New Zealand Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731097

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 9-22

Trevett, C. (2011b, February 02). PM Rules Out Any NZ First Deal. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10703680
United Future. (2008). Confidence and Supply Agreement with National. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/successes/
United Future. (n.d.a). Our Policies: Business: Employment Relations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/business/
United Future. (n.d.b). Our Policies: Social Services & Employment. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/social-services-employment/
Vowles, J. (2003). Voting Behaviour. In R. Miller (ed.). New Zealand Government and Politics (3rd ed.).
(pp. 188-200). Melbourne: Oxford University Press

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32

A Commentary on Politics and Employment Relations in New
Zealand: 2008-2011
NIGEL HAWORTH*
Introduction
As a policy issue, Employment Relations (ER) has appeared to have been, publicly at least, ofrelatively limited significance in the run up to, and after, the 2008 election. It has, on occasions,drawn serious public and media attention – a flurry around the 90-day measure or around the Hobbit
Case, for example – but, compared to the impacts of the 2008 global crisis, or taxation or welfare
policies or, of course, events in Christchurch, it has been small beer. However, as we run up to the2011 general election, ER reform is back on the table as a key plank of National‟s strategy foreconomic performance and the Prime Minister has warned the unions that they will not like
proposals that are in the making (Radio New Zealand 2011). After three years of relative
unimportance, ER may become a major political and electoral issue.
Trade unionists might well take issue with the description just offered of ER in the post-2008
period. They see the period very differently. They have experienced what might be described as“the thousand cuts” approach in ER. They observe a gradual erosion of ER provision, punctuated bysome very serious measures indeed. They would argue that public debate on ER has often
misunderstood the scale and persistence of that erosion. They expect more adverse change if a
National-led Government is returned in the 2011 General Election.
Employers, on the other hand, are broadly happy with ER changes since 2008. The changes could,
perhaps, have been quicker and more profound but, in general, the direction is thought to bepositive. Further changes consequent of the re-election of a National-led Government would bedesirable and anticipated (for example, in non-union collective arrangements or, more generally, onquestions like Youth Rates).
In this commentary, we provide an assessment of the developments in ER since 2008, focusing on
the political environment and, in particular, on the positioning of the National-led Government on
ER issues.

The Opportunity
ER issues were a relatively minor concern in the election campaigns of 2008. There were nopressing ER issues in the public‟s mind. Neither of the big parties went to the polls with a highlycharged ER statement and the Leaders‟ Debates barely mentioned them, if at all. Manifestoes said
something, but not much about them. They were almost non-issues in the general public‟s view.
This was not true for the social partners. National went into the election with employment law
changes clearly signalled but presented it, seemingly, as a “tweaking” of the framework rather thana root-and-branch reform (Rasmussen 2009: 166-7). In particular, it was stated explicitly that the
Employment Relations Act (ERA) would stay as the overall legislative framework. However, it*

Nigel Haworth is Professor of Human Resource Development in the Department of Management & International
Business, University of Auckland. Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: n.haworth@auckland.ac.nz

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
was not clear whether the array of issues in which it suggested an intention to move – holiday
provision, non-union collective bargaining, the original 90-day provision, AC, Kiwisaver, forexample – was high priority, or indeed a comprehensive statement of areas of policy interest. As inother areas, there was a feeling that National‟s policy directions were less developed than might
have been expected in an Opposition, which had had nine years to develop positions.
The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) responded adversely to these proposals.
Whilst its electoral statement avoided a piecemeal engagement with National‟s ER platform for theelection (see CTU, 2008), there was a concern in union circles about a return to an Employment
Contracts Act (ECA) approach to ER (see, for example, Kelly, 2008).
Business New Zealand went into the election period arguing for a period of stability in ER
provision, implicitly suggesting that the 1999-2008 period had been one of flux. It liked the idea ofcollective bargaining without union participation, of flexibility for the fourth week of holidays andthe 90-day model as originally applied. It also developed a major focus on compliance costs, inwhich the impact of OSH and the Holidays Act played a significant part, as did the “ambush” ofKiwisaver and the costs of ACC. One might look at the changes that were supported and thecompliance areas in which action would be appreciated and wonder what meaning Business New
Zealand attributed to “restraint and consolidation” (Business New Zealand, 2008).
Thus, from a tripartite perspective, a National victory in the election might entail changes in the ER
framework and in broader, related provisions, such as ACC and Kiwisaver. The parties werepositioning themselves for the debate around such changes, yet even amongst the social partners,
there was little sustained rhetoric about fear, conflict or major shifts in ER. Nearly a decade of
tripartism and consensus seemed to have dulled the oppositional edge somewhat.
We might wonder why an issue, which, in previous decades, had been a touchstone political matter,
had lost much of its political importance in the public sphere (as opposed to amongst the social
partners). The answer probably lies in ER changes in the two decades prior to 2008. The ECA had
devastated union density whilst simultaneously giving most employers a major shock as they geared
up to understand and implement enterprise-level bargaining. The 1990s was a very difficult period
for the social partners, if more so for one than the other. The unions were under major attack froman explicitly anti-union legal framework that sought to replace union-based collective bargaining
with a unitarist, HR-driven, enterprise-based approach to wages and conditions. Employers (though
not all) supported this attack on the unions but were not grounded in enterprise-based arrangements
and floundered in the early years of the ECA. The outcome was a halving of union density and, inmany companies, a take-it-or-leave-it approach to wages and conditions. The balance of powerswung dramatically towards employers, and they took advantage of their new powers.1
The ERA sought to counterbalance the impact of the ECA. The ERA did not dispense with the
ECA; it took key elements of the 1990 legislation and included them in a new framework. The
framework was designed to promote improved economic performance by building better workplace
relationships (as opposed to the ECA‟s focus on contract arrangements). The building block was
still the enterprise and although unions put pressure on Government, there was no serious move topromote industry or sectoral arrangements. Labour‟s model adopted “soft regulation”, that is, anapproach encouraging, rather than attempting to legislate for, changed behaviours (Macneil,
Rasmussen and Haworth, 2011). This was also true across the 1999-2008 Governments in general.
Tripartism was introduced extensively. Initiatives on productivity and partnership were introduced,
also on a tripartite basis. However, in the ER area, the three Governments in the period preferred toencourage and support rather than direct.2 They did so for many reasons, two of which areparticularly important. The first was the clash between business and the Labour-led Government in
the first term, which, arguably, had a dampening effect on Labour‟s reforming zeal. Second, Social

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
Democracy, in general, has adopted a soft regulatory approach in the face of neo-liberal certainty.
Social Democratic Governments have since the 1970s often faced the constraints imposed by neoliberal macro-economic settings and the wider ideological impact of free market philosophies. One
effect of this is to temper “hard law” interventions in policy areas, such as ER and Governments
preferring instead to use “soft regulation”, that is, measures designed to encourage and support
rather than to direct.
The combined impact of the passage of time, the ERA and soft regulation created what seemed to
be an agreement around the wider ER model. The social partners both had their problems with theframework, yet, in general, it and its agencies (the Employment Relations Authority and theMediation Service, in particular) became relatively non-controversial. Trigger issues (for example,
industrial disputes) did not arise to disrupt the consensus. There were issues on which a positive
joint purpose existed between the social partners, as in the case of better-performing workplaces ortraining provision. As the 2008 election approached, there were, at least publicly, few if any ER
issues that had that element of conflict, which would make ER a political football in the election
campaign. It seemed to be an issue around which a practical and political accommodation reigned.
Therefore, when a National-led Government came to power in 2008, it had a tremendous
opportunity. ER was, it appeared, politically non-controversial. Its legislative framework worked
and seemed to achieve something of a consensus. On the face of things, the social partners were
engaged positively around important issues, such as growth, productivity and performance. Issues
signalled as concerns around the election were, potentially, open to resolution in a tripartite
approach. There was a platform on which to build greater focus and success in the productivity area.
This was an area in which continuity and confirmed consensus could deliver serious benefits,particularly as the 2008 global crisis exploded. What was required for this potential to be realised
was, of course, that the three parties – Government, employers and unions – actively and jointly
took advantage of that potential. This was not to be.

First Days
The National-led Government came into power in adverse circumstances. The worst global
downturn since the inter-war Great Depression was in train, and New Zealand had already entered
the downturn as a result of drought and other factors. These were circumstances in which ER issues
were not likely to gain immediate priority. Indeed, apart from the signalled 90-day measure, it was
not obvious if the new Government was going to do anything much about ER, and if it was, what it
would be was not clear. On the contrary, the new Government seemed willing to continue thetripartite tradition of its predecessors.
The Jobs Summit captured that early sense of continuity. It was a tripartite process in which the
NZCTU played a strong role, alongside both business and Government sectors. Personal
relationships, so important in New Zealand, between the NZCTU and, in particular the Prime
Minister, seemed to be open and mutually respectful. Some of the measures that were implemented
from the summit, especially the jobs subsidy approach, were welcomed by all, if sometimes argued
to be too little, too narrowly focused. (see, for example, NZCTU, 2009a; b). Subsequently, thePrime Minister took part in productivity-related public events held by the NZCTU, reinforcing aperception that continuity through the change in Government was possible. The responsible
Minister appeared, on the face of things, to be, at best, moderately grounded in either the work of
the Ministry or the strengths and weaknesses of the extant ER model.
This perception was reinforced by informal conversation around the corridors of the Ministry, theemployers‟ and union organisations and also amongst media specialists (see, for example,

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
Armstrong, 2011). The general feeling was that ER was, in general, low in the Government‟s
priorities. The exception to this was the public sector, in which it became clear early on thatchanges would be a priority for the new Government. However, in the public sector, the Partnershipfor Quality approach and positive developments in the health sector seemed to have established amodus operandi that new Ministers could adopt.
The general prescription for how New Zealand would escape the economic crisis also lent some
support to a continuing tripartite framework with a focus on productivity. As was true for mosteconomies, the route out of the crisis was reduced to two key elements – increased trade with theglobal economy and improved productivity (which would deal not just with price pressures, butwould also emphasise a shift up the value curve into higher value, more sophisticated products). In
such a model, enterprises could not be “black boxes” from which Government was excluded.
Improved productivity required a joint effort across the Government, employers, unionised and nonunionised workforces to challenge each workplace to improve performance, from the simplest
adoption of a 7 Wastes approach3 to the implementation of full-scale partnership models. Hereagain was a crisis-driven opportunity to make best use of the tripartite arrangements of the previous
decade.

The 2008-2011 Period4
We can now turn to events subsequent to the Jobs Summit. Major Government ER interventions,judged in terms of impact and/or visibility, include: The introduction, under Urgency, of the initial 90-day measure (2008)
 The demise of the Partnership for Quality (2008) and a deterioration in the social dialogue in
the Public sector
 The Hobbit Issue (2010)
 Changes to the ERA and the Holidays Act (including the extension of the 90-day measure)(2010)
Other interventions include: Ending of pay and employment equity studies (2008)
 Removal of the minimum wage protection for workers on the Recognised Seasonal
Employer (RSE) scheme (2009)
 Disestablishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee(NOHSAC) (2009)
 Changes in rest and meal breaks (2009)
 Closure of the Partnership Resource Centre (2011) Announcement of a new High Performance Work Initiative (2011)
 Fishing Inquiry (2011) New labour inspectorate provision for hazardous industries (2011)
The original 90-day measure was presented as an election promise met. The 90-day idea had
currency for a considerable period before the election and was clearly signalled in National‟selection policy. It was fiercely opposed by the trade unions and supported by employer groups.
Importantly, the debate around the measure divided between neo-liberal (market) and what might bedescribed as “institutional” analyses of labour market dynamics. The measure represented apolarising tendency, not just between the social partners, but also intellectually around labour
market performance. Thus, already in 2008, the signals from the new Government were mixed. On
the one hand, there was, it seemed, an openness to dialogue at the Jobs Summit, yet simultaneously
a willingness to move against one social partner in the interests of another. There was no detailed

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
tripartite assessment of the 90-day measure. The measure was taken through Parliament under
Urgency and, subsequently, the Department of Labour (DoL) admitted thatthe department has no way of monitoring those who lose their jobs within 90 days, otherthan through the complaints procedure, nor has it the ability to report positive or negative
impacts on the labour market (New Zealand House of Representatives, 2009. See also
Cheng, 2011).
It was, therefore, a political move, carrying with it a known risk of polarising positions andthreatening future tripartite engagement with scant regard to the monitoring of its effects.
In the public sector, the Partnership for Quality lost traction and faded from view. Mr. Key had
spoken to the PSA conference, making it clear that his Government would not continue with thePartnership for Quality but would be open to engagement with the PSA. It was rather like the Jobs
Summit versus the 90-day measure, a mixed signal. Subsequently, in early 2009, the PSA raised thequestion of a further agreement with the Government, which replied that it would consider the idea.
Nothing came of that and then, as an effect of the 90-day measure and the Government‟s policies in
the public sector, the idea of an agreement lapsed. It is clear that the Government was not stronglyinterested in sustaining strong social dialogue in the public sector and was comfortable in allowing
it to lapse. Equally, the PSA, growing in a view that the new Government was marked by apolarising approach to ER, decided also to walk away from the Partnership for Quality model,whilst remaining open to constructive engagement where it might be in the interest of its members.
Subsequently, the public sector has become even more strongly polarised as an effect ofGovernment policy and rhetoric. Under the rubric of „shifting the back office to the front office‟,first capping and then cutting the size of the public sector, became Government policy. Between
December 2008 and December 2010, 1886 jobs were lost in the core public sector and the PSA
suggests that a further 600 plus jobs had either been lost or announced as cuts in January-August
2011 (Personal Communication, August 2011). The 2011 Budget provisions clearly envisaged
further job losses, though implementation decisions were pushed down to decisions at departmental
CEO-level to distance such outcomes from Ministers. Bargaining advice to Government
departments emphasises modest, performance-related settlements, fiscal prudence and careful cost
control, and it was made clear that the extended, 2010 90-day provision (see below) be applied in
the public sector. The SSC expects to maintain a relationship with the PSA but it is clearly to be a
relationship founded on Government expectations, and the existence of some departments is now
challenged as the Government questions the structure of the core public sector.
Even more striking has been the “framing language” used by the Government about the public
sector. This has moved a long way from the partnership language of the Partnership for Quality. Mr.
English has launched a dismissive attack on public servants as purveyors of waffle and suggested
that they lack integrity and creativity. Mr. Key has weighed in with comments about a bloated andinefficient public sector. Dr. Brash, leader of the Government support party, ACT, has spoken of
public servants as Little Hitlers. Putting to one side the hyperbole found in statements of this type, it
is clear that the post-2008 Government and its allies disrespect public servants.
The Hobbit Case in 2010 captures the shift from ambiguity towards, to explicit opposition to tradeunions on the part of the post-2008 Government. The outcome of the dispute was, in ER terms,
quite extraordinary. In a contingent move, uninformed by any detailed policy analysis, theGovernment chose to remove, from a group of New Zealand workers, the possibility to make fulluse of the national ER framework in place. Instead, that layer of workers was arbitrarily defined ascontractors, except in the unlikely event the employer chooses to take a collective approach to ER.
This was done to appease an alliance of powerful domestic and international forces in the global

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
film industry. It was a measure that, in its haste and content, carried through Parliament under
Urgency, is difficult to associate with a modern and developed OECD nation. The NZCTU opposed
this measure as firmly as employer groups supported it. However, the NZCTU opposition was
clouded by the Government‟s dismissive approach to the NZCTU‟s attempts at problem-solving in
the dispute. Instead, the Government chose to elide all union involvement in the matter into one
camp, providing an explicit rationale for what can only be described as old-fashioned union
bashing.
Also, in 2010, the Government brought through a range of amendments to the ERA and to theHolidays Act. A key rational for the changes was to “rebalance” fairness in ER from employee to
employer interests, in the interests of efficiency. It was, therefore, expressly a one-sided
Government intervention into legislation, much as had been the intervention in the Hobbit Case.
The amendments of the ERA included:
 Reduced union access rights
 Extended communication rights for employers during bargaining Extension of the 90-day provision to all enterprises
 Shifts towards employer interests in the Personal grievance process
Amendments of the Holidays Act allow:
 The “cashing-up” of up to one week‟s holidays
 The transfer of observance of a public holiday
 Significantly tighter requirements relating to the provision of medical certificates
Many of these issues were the site of established, fierce employer-union opposition, often over an
extended period. The “rebalancing” favoured the employer party in every important issue. It was
the partial granting of an employer wish-list that had grown since 2000. Outside the parliamentary
process, there was no attempt to construct a tripartite engagement on potential changes in thelegislative framework. It was an explicit political decision to favour employer interests.

An Opportunity Lost?
When we look at the ER scene in New Zealand over the 2008-2011 period, we are struck by the
cumulative, major change in both its operating principles and its substance. The tripartism thatmarked the 1999-2008 period has all but disappeared. The dialogue between employer
organisations and unions has suffered in equal measure, for without a strong Government
commitment to inclusive dialogue, collaborative problem-solving gave way to factional argument,
and in a context in which Government favoured one faction over another. It is not simply that
tripartism has fallen away but that Government has promoted positively a pro-business agenda inboth the public and private sector ER contexts. From a degree of modest ambiguity in 2008, theGovernment has moved to adopt principles that are aligned more with the ECA than with theprinciples underpinning the ERA. Hence, when the Prime Minister announces that his re-election
will see further ER measures that the unions will not like, he is confirming that shift in ER
principle.
This is also true for matters of substance. From the pragmatic approach to job matters found in the
Jobs Summit, the subsequent practical ER measures introduced by the post-2008 Government –from the initial 90 Day measure to the changes in the public sector, the Hobbit Case and on into the2010 ERA and Holidays Act amendments – have been fundamentally one-sided. We note that theGovernment is unabashed by this view. It is proudly a Government that sees itself supportingNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
businesses, both domestic and international, and wishes to provide an ER system that emphasisesthat preference.
As the 2011 election approaches, the Government is wedded to an ER model that favours employers
and proposes to do more in that direction, if re-elected. It has replaced a tripartite model ofengagement and joint problem-solving with a framework in which one social partner has privileged
access and another is held at a considerable distance. It is interesting to adduce reasons for thispositioning. First, it seems that there was no coherent “front line” ER policy at the time of theelection. Rather, there was a piecemeal, contingent set of issues, derived mainly from contact with
employer organisations.
Second, as its time in office progressed, older hands around the Cabinet with a stronger ideologicalcommitment to neo-liberal thinking were comfortable with a dismantling of tripartism and a“rebalancing” of ER (and other) policy towards business interests.
Third, in response to the crisis and then the consequent debt issues, orthodox neo-liberal policy
settings (as in the case of public expenditure, for example) became dominant and, with them, views
about ER more akin to those found in the ECA.
Fourth, employer organisations abandoned tripartism without a fight, clearly expecting to gain
privileged access to a pro-business Government. To an extent, this may have come true though we
also appear to observe less leverage over Government for those organisations that they might haveexpected. One of the most striking features of the post-2008 period is the volte face of theemployers as they sought contingent advantage.
Fifth, in the absence of Government or employer interest in tripartism, the unions were relatively
isolated from the debates influencing the Government, and though regular meetings with theGovernment took place, union influence was generally limited.
Sixth, we note that the DoL has been on constant restructuring for much of the period since 2008.
This may have undermined the extent that its “epistemic community” could, if so inclined, promote
continuing tripartism in policy matters. This was not helped by the Government‟s post-2008
downgrading of key areas of tripartite activity in the 1999-2008 period, such as the productivity
agenda.
In sum, in the absence of a strong Government drive for sustained tripartism, a union movement
supporting such arrangements was unable to promote them effectively, especially as employer
organisations adopted other arrangements. There is much to ponder on the ease with which nearly adecade of tripartism can be abandoned so easily by two of the three parties.
Whether the replacement of tripartism and social dialogue by a one-sided focus on employer
interests is an opportunity lost or a desirable return to an anti-union, unitarist ER framework is,therefore, a matter of principle. In many ways, it is reducible to the defining social democratic-neoliberal clash that has driven the developed world and beyond since the 1970s. Social Democracy,
operating at a macro level in terms of Keynesianism, welfare provision, active Government andsocial inclusion still emphasises tripartism, the importance of voice for both employers and unions
in that tripartism and the legitimacy of pluralism in ER frameworks. The neo-liberal approach –centred on principles of individualism, market-driven competition and non-intervention by theGovernment – in practice, favours businesses (the “bearer” of market behaviour) and regards unions
as a malign, collective affront to individual rights. Whilst such vocabulary is generally eschewed by
the post-2008 Government (though not in the public sector, and not about the unions in the Hobbit
Case, for example), the Government‟s objective position is ever-more closely aligned with that neo-New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
liberal tradition. Protestations, to the contrary, are belied by the weight and tendency of legislative
moves over the last three years.
If, therefore, one is of a neo-liberal tradition, then post-2008 ER shifts are broadly positive. It is aquestion of the Government doing better, both in the narrow ER context and in the wider labour
market policy settings. If one is of social democratic bent, one sees the demise of tripartism and thegeneral tendency towards ER settings that favour one social partner over another as damaging toboth the ER environment and to New Zealand‟s economic performance. We might conclude
reasonably that, notwithstanding a claim to pragmatism, the post-2008 Government‟s ER approach
has charted a clear course in the former direction and intends, if elected, to continue with a full headof steam.

Notes
1

Not all, as we said. Some, often larger, more sophisticated organisations, continued traditional
constructive, pluralist bargaining arrangements, but they were in a minority (Ballard and
McAndrew, 2006).
2

There were, of course, exceptions to the soft regulation model – in health and safety, maternity
leave and minimum wages, for example.
3

In Lean Production Systems, identifying areas of waste (the 7 Wastes) is a basic element of
improved performance. The 7 areas are transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, over-processing,over-production and defects.
4

For the purposes of this article, wider issues, which have a bearing on tripartism, the relationshipbetween the social partners and on government thinking on labour markets –for example, taxation
policy, ACC, Kiwisaver, a productivity agenda, trade matters, privatisation, minimum and youth
wages – are excluded.

References
Armstrong, J. (August 18, 2011). Wait and See Line Minister Deep in a Hole of her own Making.
Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mining/news/article.cfm?c_id=64&objectid=10745800
Ballard, M. and McAndrew, I. (2006). Illustrated Report & Stocktake on Workplace Partnership in
New Zealand. Report commissioned by the Partnership Centre, Department of Labour. Retrieved
from http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/bestpractice/prc/resources/research/stocktake/nz_full.pdf
Business New Zealand. Restrained Approach to Employment Relations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessnz.org.nz/doc/1472/Restrainedapproachtoemploymentrelations
Cheng, D. (August 30, 2011). Who Really Pushed 90 day Job Law. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669180
Kelly, H. (2008). Work Rights a Big Issue in this Election.
http://union.org.nz/news/2008/work-rights-a-big-issue-in-this-election

RetrievedfromNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 23-32
Macneil, J., Rasmussen, E. and Haworth, n. (2011). Soft Regulation of Employment Relations:
Shade of Grey. Referred Conference Paper. BUIRA Annual Conference. 7-9 July, 2011. Universityof Greenwich.
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU). (2008). Election Policy Statement. Retrieved
from http://union.org.nz/sites/union/files/CTU-Election-Policy-Final.pdf
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU). (2009a). CTU Welcomes Training Options for 9
day Fortnight. Retrieved from http://union.org.nz/news/2009/ctu-welcomes-training-options-for9day-fortnight
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU). (2009b). Youth Job Initiatives a Good Start but
more Needed. Retrieved from http://union.org.nz/news/2009/youth-job-initiatives-a-good-start-butmore-needed
New Zealand House of Representatives. (2009). 2007/08 Financial Review of the Department ofLabour. Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Retrieved fromhttp://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/F0F5CDA4-FD22-47D8-A251ED240345E47E/101179/DBSCH_SCR_4303_6555.pdf
Radio New Zealand. (2011). PM Signals Further Changes to Employment Law. Retrieved fromhttp://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/77220/pm-signals-further-changes-to-employment-law
Rasmussen, E. (2009). Employment Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Pearson.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

The Employment Relations Act 2000: a Brief Overview and Suggested Changes
ALAN GEARE*, FIONA EDGAR** and KELLY HONEY***
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of the Employment Relations Act 2000, showing its genesis in the
Employment Contracts Act 1991 and argues that further amendments to the legislation should be
for genuine reason – of improving employment relations – rather than to simply appease selfinterested sections of the electorate. Any advancement towards a balance of power between
employers, unions and employees represents improvement in employment relations. We call for lessrather than more change to allow parties to have confidence in the system and argue that whenchange occurs, it is prudent that changes be: required in the first instance, widely discussed, wellthought out, well drafted and commonsensical. It is proposed that the 90-day trial period be
repealed, that redundancy legislation be introduced and other important areas such as dismissal,
collective bargaining and unions be left alone to improve employment relations in New Zealand.

Introduction
Our article is concerned with the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA). In November 2011, there
will be a General Election and the possibility of further amendments to the ERA. If the ERA had
represented a significant change to the pre-existing legislation, the parties to employment relations(employers, employees and unions and the state) would still have had over a decade to come togrips with the particular legislative philosophy. The reality is that rather than a decade, they have
had over two decades, because as will be argued below, the genesis of the ERA was in fact the
Employment Contracts Act 1991 (ECA).
Yet, despite the relative stability of the legislative philosophy, there have been numerous
amendments to legislation during this period. We argue that, rather than continue with New
Zealand‟s predilection for incessant tinkering with employment relations legislation, there should be
a conscious effort to celebrate stability. The Court of Appeal strongly endorsed this view in Aorakiv McGavin [1998] (at 292): “It is imperative that employees and employers be able to plan withconfidence and determine what their respective rights and obligations are.” While the Court ofAppeal was referring, in that instance, to legislation regarding redundancy, the quote is equallyapposite to all areas of employment. Consequently, we suggest that proposed amendments be kept
to a minimum and should be proposed only after careful consideration and for the purpose of
improving employment relations and not simply to appease elements of the electorate.

BackgroundIn marked contrast to the last two decades, the previous decade from 1982-1991 experienced
extremely radical changes in legislative philosophy. In 1982, the key legislation was the Industrial*

Professor (and Head) of the Department of Management, University of Otago.
Senior Lecturer at the Department of Management, University of Otago.
***
Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Management, University of Otago.
**

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Relations Act 1973 (IRA) and New Zealand was still in the so-called “Arbitration Era” (Geare andEdgar, 2007), which dated back to 1894 when the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act(ICAA) was passed. Significantly, that Act was entitled “An Act to encourage the formation ofIndustrial Unions and Associations, and to facilitate the settlement of Industrial Disputes by
Conciliation and Arbitration.” Certainly, the 1894 Act had been re-enacted and had had many
amendments but the underlying philosophy was unchanged. There were some significant changes
during the 90 years – in particular compulsory unionism by law from 1936, followed bycompulsory unionism by agreement from 1961.
The “Arbitration Era” effectively came to an end in 1984 when an Amendment Act madeArbitration available only if both employers and unions wanted it. The 1984 Labour Government‟s
economic changes opened up the economy to overseas competition and resulted in widespread
redundancies and increasing unemployment (see Table 1 below for the drop in employment 19859). The union movement was probably at its weakest for decades. Not surprisingly employers
refused en bloc to take disputes to arbitration.
Although the Labour Government had weakened unions through their economic policies, theirintent was expressed in the title to the new Labour Relations Act 1987 (LRA): “to facilitate theformation of effective and accountable unions.” The LRA introduced “significant, indeed radical,
changes in industrial relations” (Geare, 1989: 213). The Act was notable in that it had been widely
discussed and well thought through before enactment. Its aim was to have strong unions able tocollectively bargain with employers in an effective manner. Unions were now required to have 1000
members and membership remained compulsory by agreement. The most significant change inphilosophy was that strikes (and lockouts) became legal over interest-type disputes – setting terms
and conditions. This “Collective Bargaining Era” was to last only five years.
Although Labour was trying, by legislation, to create strong and effective unions, their economicchanges had much more impact and the union movement was weakening. Two prominentorganisations: the then New Zealand Employers Federation (NZEF) and the New Zealand Business
Roundtable (NZBR) published a series of attacks on “unions and union officials, compulsory union
membership and the system of wide coverage union-management documents” (Geare, 2001: 289).
Time and again there was a call for flexibility in the labour market.
In 1990, National became Government and very quickly introduced the ECA. There were two
notable features of the ECA:(a) It was a very rushed piece of legislation, described as “poorly thought through in legal
terms and which contains glaring ambiguities” (Anderson, 1991: 129) and with legal
drafting which “was in many areas abysmal” (Geare, 2001: 292).
(b) The purpose of the ECA was “to promote an efficient labour market” and, in effect, thiswas seen to be achieved by allowing employers to do as they wished. As observed by
Dannin (1992: 3) its provisions matched “with great precision” those of the NZEF and
NZBR.
Also, not surprisingly, those two organisations were fulsome in their praise for the ECA and, in ajoint publication, considered the Act to be “making an outstanding contribution to productivity
growth” (NZBR and NZEF, 1992: 1). In contrast, Gill (2009: 37) points out that the years of the
ECA coincided with “a substantial drop in OECD productivity rankings.”
The Court of Appeal stated that “the Act is not anti-union, it may fairly be described as unionneutral” (United Food Workers, 1993: 370). Technically, this is correct, but given that, as describedNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

above, previous legislation, for nearly a century, had supported unions and collective bargaining,
the sudden and total removal of all support for unions and collective bargaining certainly appearedanti-union and “the impact of the ECA on unions was devastating” (Cooper and May, 2005: 4).
Unions under the ECA no longer enjoyed:(a) sole bargaining rights(b) protection from “member poaching” by other unions(c) compulsory union membership by agreement – indeed that was now explicitly illegal(d) sole access to the personal grievance procedure – the grievance procedure was now
available to all employees, subtly removing a major selling point for unions
Indeed, collective bargaining was no longer supported by this legislation; it was permitted, but so
was individual bargaining. The ECA purported to allow employees to “choose” collective
bargaining or individual bargaining, but it also gave the same rights to employers. As a result, ofcourse, if the parties had different “choices” only the more powerful would get its “choice.”
The wish list discussed earlier of the NZEF and NZBR was granted to a significant degree. Unions
were severely weakened, compulsory membership was made illegal and industry, regional andnational union-management documents were almost all replaced by workplace agreements.
However, the ECA was not simply the statute. The total Act is the statute and common law – how it
is interpreted by the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal. The Chief Judge‟s sentiments
were expressed in his judgement in (Ford v Capital Trusts [1995] at 66) when he stated that“fortune may favour the strong, but justice must favour the weak.” As argued elsewhere (Geare,2001), common law resulted in a marked change in the ECA during the period it was in effect.

The Employment Relations Act 2000
Prior to the 1993 General Election, the Labour Party had outlined its proposed Employment
Relations Act (ERA), which if they won the General Election would replace the ECA. At that time,those proposed reforms were described as “superficial rather than substantial, and are cosmetic
rather than creative” (Geare, 1993: 203). In the intervening period, little has changed and althoughemployer groups greeted the ERA with “howls of protest” (Cooper and May, 2005: 4), the howls
soon subsided. Indeed, when the Labour-led Government proposed the Employment Relations
Amendment Act 2004 (ERAA), employers again howled in protest, but this time because they
considered the ERA did not need fixing. The ERA, with the 2004 Amendment, “represent moderate
reform, a degree of re-regulation within a clear ECA context” (Cooper and May, 2005: 4).
It is worth emphasising that the following significant changes introduced by the ECA still remain in
effect even after the ERA 2000 and the ERAA 2004 passed by Labour-led Governments:a) Employers with sufficient power can ensure there is individual bargaining, regardless of
the wishes of their employees.
b) In contrast to other Western democracies, compulsory union membership is still illegal.
c) The personal grievance procedure is still available to all employees, thereby removing amajor “selling point” for unions.
d) Enterprise agreements, rather than industry or regional documents, are still the norm.
e) Collective bargaining still may take place, but unions do not enjoy sole bargaining rights
or protection from membership poaching.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Certainly the ERA looks more union-friendly than did the ECA (which pretended unions did notexist). In s.3 the ERA states its object is:(a) to build productive employment relationships …
(i) by a legislative requirement “for good faith behaviour” – which, by implication,
was more significant than the “implied mutual obligations of trust andconfidence.”(ii) “by acknowledging and addressing (sic) the inherent inequality of power in
employment relations” – the acknowledgement is realistic, the claim that theinequality is “addressed” is, as argued below, questionable.
(iii) “by promoting collective bargaining” – but, again as argued below, without muchenthusiasm or significance.
During its tenure, the Labour-led Government did achieve a large increase in the number of unions
in New Zealand. This was because the ERA requires that should collective bargaining occur, it is tobe between a “union” and the employer. If employers wanted to collectively rather than individuallybargain, they had to do it with a “union” so workforces were required to become a paper union tocomply with the law. During the period December 1999-December 2001, as Table 1 below shows,the number of unions doubled. Union density also went up – but only from 21.1% to 21.6%. So,
while some of these paper unions may actually function as real unions, there is little evidence tosupport this. Before passing the 2004 Amendment, the then Minister of Labour claimed she saw “anumber of advantages with employers bargaining collectively with unions in good faith” (Wilson,
2003: 124). If the Labour-led Government had been serious about promoting collective bargaining
and addressing the inequality of power, then a lot more needed to be done than what actuallyoccurred. In effect, a return to similar legislation to the LRA 1987 would be required. It is veryclear that the Labour Party, both when in power and now in opposition, has no intention of
proposing that.
Table 1: Trade Unions, Membership and Union Density 1985-2006

Year

Dec 1985
Sept 1989
Dec 1991
Dec 1995
Dec 1999
Dec 2000
Dec 2001
Dec 2005
Dec 2006

Union
membership

Number ofunions(1)(2)

683006684425514325362200302405318519329919377348382538

259
112
66
82
82
134
165
175
166

Potential union
membership

Union Density

Total
Wage and
employedsalarylabour force earners(3)(4)(1)/(3)%(5)(1)/(4)%(6)1569100
1457900
1518800
1730700
1810300
1848100
1891900
2105600
2109800

43.5
47.0
33.9
20.9
16.7
17.2
17.4
17.9
18.1

53.1
55.7
43.0
26.7
21.1
21.6
21.6
21.9
21.7

1287400
1164600
1196100
1357500
1435900
1477300
1524900
1719500
1764500(1985 and 1989 are from Harbridge, May and Thickett (2003: 143); the rest are from Feinberg-Danieli and
Lafferty (2007: 32)

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Possible legislative areas for scrutiny
In the introduction, we indicated our preference was for change to be kept to a minimum, and to be
for the purpose of improving employment relations rather than appeasing self-interested sections of
the electorate. Political reality makes this hope more than somewhat naïve. However, it is surely
problematic that legislative amendments are rarely accepted as necessary or beneficial, for example,
the National-led Government‟s ERAA 2010 introduced changes to unions‟ right of access.
Anderson (2010: 93) states “there was no rational reason for this change, but that is true of many of
the changes in the Amendment Act”, a view which was supported by Robson (2010: 98) who in
considering the changes to mediation felt “it is equally difficult to assess whether this was ever a
problem that required a remedy.”
Rather than fixing a genuine problem, the change to unions‟ rights of access is more indicative of a
subtle philosophical shift away from the ERA‟s mandate for increased cooperation and the focus on
relationships and back towards the ECA‟s emphasis on flexibility and resistance towards unions.
This amendment increases the power of the employer, thereby increasing the likelihood of conflict
between employers and unions, a change that was neither necessary nor beneficial to employment
relations in general.
It is, of course, possibly true that a high percentage of both employers and employees allow thenever ending amendments to employment law to wash over them without any concern or
acknowledgement. However, there is the point made by Davenport (2010: 96) that “participants inindustrial relations are likely to view a change in the law as entitling different conduct …”, andeven if it only impacts a small percentage of participants, it is essential that changes be well thought
out and result from a genuine belief they will improve employment relations.
Focusing on the ERA, there are four legislative areas we wish to highlight:a) dismissals;b) the 90 day trial period;c) redundancy provisions; andd) collective bargaining and unions.
Dismissals
Since the personal grievance procedure was introduced successfully in 1973 after an initial failure
in 1970, employees have been able to take a grievance if they considered they had been
“unjustifiably dismissed.” Until the ERAA 2004 and 2010, the test of justification was left tocommon law. As argued elsewhere (Geare, 2007), case law developed along different lines. One
approach was, as expressed by the Chief Judge in NZ Food Processing Union v Unilever [1990],
that the dismissal be considered in all the circumstances to be substantively justified andprocedurally fair. Within a few years, the Chief Judge expressed things somewhat differently andalso somewhat contradictorily in Drummond v Coca Cola Bottlers [1995] at 232-3:
It is now well settled that it is incorrect to look at dismissal separately from the point ofview of substantive justification and procedural fairness, especially in that order for it islikely to lead to a mindset that on certain assumptions the dismissal must be justified,leading to a reluctance to defeat the making of those assumptions by criticism of what issometimes described as „mere procedure‟. The true inquiry is one that looks at thedismissal overall but it would be no exaggeration to say that the inquiry into procedure
should come first.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

An alternative approval was expressed by the Court of Appeal in Northern Distribution Union v BP
Oil at 483 as “the question is essentially whether the decision to dismiss was one which a
reasonable and fair employer would have taken …” It is possible that the Court of Appeal used theword “would” after careful consideration. We suggest this is highly improbable, given their very
reasonable observation in the “Oram” case (W & H Newspapers v Oram at 487) that:
The Court has to be satisfied that the decision to dismiss was one which a reasonable
and fair employer could have taken. Bearing in mind that there may be more than one
correct response open to a fair and reasonable employer, we prefer to express this interms of „could‟ rather than „would‟.
The Labour-led Government decided to “repeal” Oram in the 2004 Amendment and included a testof justification in s.103A:
For the purpose of section 103(1)(a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an
action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by considering whether
the employer‟s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable
employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action
occurred.
We see this reverse back to “would” as unfortunate. Taken literally, it implies that no dismissal isjustified unless all fair and reasonable employers would do the same thing and dismiss. Researchshows that seemingly fair and reasonable employers can take a variety of approaches to the same
issue. For example, in a study of 150 general or plant managers‟ reactions to a theoretical case of
employee theft where an employee admits theft to a supervisor, responses varied greatly (Geare,1996). Indeed, some 78% stated they would probably dismiss, while 22% stated that they would
give counselling and/or a warning. Of course, not all those surveyed may be considered fair andreasonable. However, 57 outlined their approach indicating impeccable procedural fairness, with afurther 37 giving a reasoned response, but showing some procedural inadequacies. The final 56
gave a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss on the spot.
The ERAA 2010 appears to acknowledge this divergence and reverts back to “could”, a move weconsider sensible. The 2010 Amendment also specifies basic procedures and in s.103A(5) goes on
to put in statutory form, what was well accepted in common law:
The Authority or the court must not determine a dismissal or an action to beunjustifiable under this section solely because of defects in the process followed by theemployer if the defects were –“(a) minor; and(b) did not result in the employee being treated unfairly.”
Further amendment to this area is undesirable.
90-day trial period
The 90-day trial period was introduced by the ERAA 2008 and applied to employers with 19
employees or fewer. The ERAA 2010 amended the section so that it now applies to all employers.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

The 2008 Amendment was rushed through under urgency. Roth (2009: 7) points out that “fast law
tends to be bad law” and that the 90-day trial is a good example of this. Given that the 2010
Amendment simply extends the legislation to apply to all employers, the problems Roth observed
still remain and so “it is not likely to accomplish what it is intended to do, and is more likely toachieve the opposite if employers are relying upon it for dismissals free of any legal consequence.”(Roth, 2009: 7)
The Department of Labour Report on Trial Periods (Johri and Fawthorpe, 2010) summarised theofficial objectives of trial periods as: to encourage small and medium enterprises to take on employees to reduce employment relationship problems experienced by small businesses
 to provide opportunities for those who might suffer disadvantage in the labour market,
includingo womeno youtho first-time workers
o Maori and Pasifika
o people returning to work after a period of unemployment or child rearingo people with disabilities or mental illnesso migrants, oro people with overseas qualifications.
Those objectives are highly laudable but, unfortunately, there is little evidence that they will ever beachieved, and little probability that any policy maker actually believed they could or would beachieved.
We believe the 90-day trial period was introduced to appease those employer groups who had
convinced themselves that there was a “grievance gravy train” (Woodhams: 8) encouraged by “nowin no fee advocates” and even that some employees “may be provoking confrontations in the hopeof winning a financial settlement through such advocates” (ibid). That report (p. 6) goes on to pointout that those allegations had no foundations and also that “the median direct cost of all ERPs
(employment relationship problems – on merit) including those proceeding to legislation
represented was about $5,000, of which $2,800 represented payouts to employees.”
A further myth about grievances is that small businesses experience more grievances than do large
businesses. This is a misinterpretation of survey data and results in such claims as Roth (2009: 7),
who suggests “surveys indicate that small and medium sized employers are more likely to haveunjustifiable dismissal claims raised against them than larger employers, and such claims tend tooccur within the first six months of employment.” In fact, surveys only show that small businesses
have more grievances per 100 employees. Woodhams (2007: 11) states
the incidence rate per 100 employees per year was higher for small businesses (2.9) than forlarge businesses (1.2), indicating that employees are more likely to experience an ERP if theywork for a small business than a large one.
What this means is that an employee in a small firm is more likely to be involved in an employment
problem than an employee in a large firm – but not that small businesses have more grievances thanlarge. In fact, Woodhams (2007: 11) shows

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

smaller businesses were less likely than larger businesses to experience a problem (6% ofsmall businesses had experienced a problem during the survey period, as opposed to 53% oflarge businesses. This is not surprising, given that large businesses employ more staff.
Overall, Walker and Hamilton (2009) consider there is a low incidence of grievances.
Some oppose the 90-day trial because it disregards “the elementary human dignity of consultation
before dismissal” (Hughes, 2009: 3). We have sympathy with that sentiment, but our primaryobjection is that the 90-day trial period panders to employers who are poor managers. As Rosenberg(2010: 80) puts it, thelegislation is encouraging poor personnel management practices such as failing to supervise
employees adequately, failing to give them feedback to enable them to improve theirperformance, and using dismissal rather than good interview and employment practices toaddress the quality of the appointment process.
For good managers, the 90-day trial period is unnecessary. Good managers utilise effective
selection processes, ensure new employees not only know what is required of them, but also areable to perform, or are receiving training, and monitor their performance and work attitudes. If there
are problems, they are addressed. In rare cases employees may be dismissed – but the need for
dismissal will be considerably lower when there is careful monitoring of performance and attitudes.
Good employers reserve the use of dismissal for situations where the trust and confidence in therelationship has been destroyed.
Unfortunately for poor managers, the 90-day trial is likely to exacerbate the situation and makethem worse by allowing them to continue in managerial roles with inadequate managerial skills
because they feel they have the “let-out” of dismissal within the 90 days, there is no incentive forthem to upskill. These poor managers will be less likely to monitor performance and attitude and so
mediocre employees, who could have become adequate with monitoring, will be disadvantaged.
Furthermore, employees bound by the 90-day trial period are at risk of being “let-go” for less thanbreaching the trust and confidence in the employment relationship because there are no legal
consequences for the dismissal. While incidence statistics, according to Walker and Hamilton(2009) vary widely, overall they appear comparable to those internationally.
Although a National-led Government will almost certainly leave the 90-day trial period in place toappease employers with poor or no managerial skills, we strongly advocate its removal.
Redundancy legislation
In contrast to the 90-day trial period where we advocate a repeal of legislation, with regards toredundancy legislation we advocate that the new Government finally take redundancy out of the“too hard” basket and introduce redundancy legislation. The case has been argued over the years(Geare, 1983; Geare, 1999; Geare and Edgar, 2006) and consequently we will put forward only abrief discussion.
In the absence of comprehensive redundancy legislation, employees who do not have a redundancy
agreement will receive whatever their employer chooses to give, what they are able to negotiate
when in a very weak bargaining position or whatever compensation they are able to receive bytaking a personal grievance over the manner of the dismissal. Over the years, liberal minded judges

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

have “interpreted” union-management agreements and legislation in what could be claimed either as“very liberal” or “judicially active”, depending on your viewpoint.
The Court of Appeal in Aoraki v McGavin made a valiant effort to curb the judicial activism, whichbegan back in 1983 with Wellington Local Bodies and continued through Wellington Caretakers
IUW v GN Hale & Son Ltd [1990] 836 and Brighouse and Bilderbeck. However, while the Court ofAppeal tried hard, it did not stop activism and it appears that it “simply required more creativity on
the part of activists. Every comment in a decision is seen as a possible loophole and opportunity forfurther activism” (Geare and Edgar, 2006: 379).
As we argued in the introduction, employers and employees should be able to clearly determine
what both their rights and obligations are. However, the absolute lack of clarity as to what isrequired in redundancy situations is illustrated in a very recent case Vice Chancellor of Massey
University v Wrigley and Kelly, which involved the extent of information to be provided andconsultation to occur over a redundancy situation, and whether information obtained “inconfidence” can be kept confidential. New Zealand needs comprehensive, well thought out
redundancy legislation – not the “piece-meal, half hearted” (Geare and Edgar 2006: 381) efforts
made by the Labour-led Government in 2004. We very much hope that whoever wins the Election
will have the courage and foresight to introduce comprehensive redundancy legislation – but we are
not in the least confident that this will occur.
Collective bargaining and unions
We have already commented on this area so this will be brief. Given the Labour Party‟s apparent
reluctance to address the “inherent inequality of power in employment relations” via collective
bargaining, which would require increased support for proper unions and a legislative requirement
for collective bargaining, this is one area we recommend be left alone. Alternatively, we advocate
for stability of the dismissal legislation, for the 90-day trial period to be repealed and for the
introduction of legislation for redundancy situations as a means to address, in part, the current
inequality of power in employment relations.
As we, yet again, witness a gradual pendulum shift in employment relations in New Zealand, we
argue for some stability for our legislative framework. Motivated by recent governmental concern
for improving workplace productivity, this arena is currently witnessing either the proposal or
introduction of a raft of legislative changes. These changes, according to the Department of Labour,
are aimed at creating “a more flexible and responsible labour market”, which in turn “is expected tocontribute indirectly to improved productivity in a number of sectors” (Department of Labour
Annual Report, 2010: 5). In all honesty, can the Government claim these changes are for the mutual
benefit of employers and employees, or even for the benefit of enhancing employment relations ingeneral? We think not. We see implicit in them a subtle shift in power leading to a deregulation of
the labour market, evidenced by a weakening of employee rights and a gradual return to numericalflexibility – features very much reminiscent of the early 1990s. These changes will not prosper theemployment opportunities of the disadvantaged, but rather they will work against them – inherently
discriminating against the young and against women who leave and re-enter the workforce more
frequently than do men.

References

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Anderson, G. (1991). The Employment Contracts Act 1991: an Employer‟s Charter? New Zealand
Journal of Industrial Relations. 16(2): 127-142
Anderson, G. (2010). Union Rights of Entry to the Workplace. Employment Law Bulletin. 8: 93-94
Cooper, R. and May, R. (2005). Union Revitalisation in Australia and New Zealand, 1995-2005.
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 30(3): 1-17
Dannin, E.J. (1992). Labor Law Reform in New Zealand. New York Law School Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law. 13: 1-39
Davenport, G. (2010). Communication During Collective Bargaining – Will the Legislative Reform
Clarity or Confuse the “Conversation”? Employment Law Bulletin. 8: 94-97
DepartmentofLabour.
(2010).
AnnualReport.
http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/general/ar0910/annualreport0910.pdf

Retrievedfrom

Feinberg-Danieli, G. and Laffery, G. (2007). Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand:
Annual Review for 2006. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 32(3): 31-39
Geare, A.J. (1983). Redundancy in New Zealand. Wellington: NZ Institute of Public
Administration, Research Monographs.
Geare, A.J. (1989). New Directions in New Zealand Labour Legislation: the Labour Relations Act
1987. International Labour Review. 128(2): 213-228
Geare, A.J. (1993). The Proposed Employment Relations Act. New Zealand Journal of Industrial
Relations. 18(2): 194-204
Geare, A.J. (1996). Dismissal and the Law in New Zealand: Managerial Reactions to Alleged
Employee Theft. International Journal of Employment Studies. 4(1): 1-22
Geare, A.J. (1999). Full Circle? The Continuing Saga of Redundancy Legislation. New Zealand
Journal of Industrial Relations. 24(1): 75-82
Geare, A.J. (2001). The Employment Contracts Act 1991-2001: a Decade of Change. New Zealand
Journal of Industrial Relations. 26(3): 287-305
Geare, A.J. (2007). Legal Rights of Employees in the Event of Dismissal: the New ZealandSituation. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations. 23(2): 267283
Geare, A.J. and Edgar, F.J. (2006). Stroking the Nettle: New Zealand Legislators and the Issues ofRedundancy. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations. 22(3):369-383
Geare, A.J. and Edgar, F.J. (2007). Employment Relations: New Zealand and Abroad. Dunedin:
Otago University Press

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Gill, C. (2009). How Unions Impact on the State of the Psychological Contract to Facilitate the
Adoption of New Work Practices (NWP). New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 34(2):29-43Harbridge, R., May, R. and Thickett, G. (2003). The Current State of Play: Collective Bargaining
and Union Membership under the Employment Relations Act 2000. New Zealand Journal ofIndustrial Relations. 28(2): 140-149
Hughes, J. (2009). The Introduction of the New Trial Period Law: Urgent or Expedient?
Employment Law Bulletin. 1: 1-14
Johri, R. and Fawthorpe, L. (2010). Trial Employee Periods: an Evaluation of the First Year ofOperation.
DepartmentofLabourReport.
Retrievedfrom
http://dol.govt.nz/publications/research/trial-periods/trial-periods-evaluation.pdf
Robson, S. (2010). The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2010: Process Issues in theMediation Service and the Authority. Employment Law Bulletin. 8: 97-99
Roth, P. (2009). The New Trial Period Legislation: a Rush Job. Employment Law Bulletin. 1: 7-12
Rosenberg, B. (2010). No Evidence for the Prime Minister‟s Claims on 90-day Trials. Employment
Law Bulletin. 7: 79-80
Walker, B. and Hamilton, R.T. (2009). Grievance Processes: Research, Rhetoric and Directions.
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 34(3): 43-64
Wilson, M. (2003). Growth and Innovation Through Good Faith Collective Negotiation. New
Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 28(2): 122-128
Woodhams, B. (2007). Employment Relationship Problems: Costs, Benefits, Choices. DepartmentofLabourReport.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/erproblems/index.asp

Cases
Aoraki Corporation v McGavin [1989] 2 NZLLR 278
Brighouse v Bilderbeck [1994] 2 ERNZ 243 (CA)Drummond v Coca Cola Bottlers NZ [1995] 2 ERNZ 229
Ford v Capital Trusts [1995] 2 ERNZ 47
Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil
NZ Food Processing Union v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 2 NZ ELC 97567
United Food and Chemical Workers Union v Talley [1993] 2 ERNZ 360 (CA)New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 33-44

Vice Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley and Kelly [2010] NZ Emp C 37
W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] ERNZ 448
Wellington Caretakers IUW v GN Hale & Son Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 836
Wellington Local Bodies v Westland Catchment Board [1988] NZILR 1708

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60

Legislation for Participation: an Overview of New Zealand’s Health and Safety
Representative Employee Participation System.
LEIGH-ANN HARRISAbstract
New Zealand‟s Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act, 2002 favours increasing worker
participation in occupational health and safety (OHS) via a system of health and safety
representatives. This amendment gives workers the right to „have a say‟ in the running of theirorganisations, and has significant potential for improving the working environment and making
working life more democratic. This paper chronicles the political conflict that hampered the union
movement‟s attempts to enshrine representatives within New Zealand OHS law, outlines the current
legal provisions for employee participation set out in the country‟s principal OHS statute and looks
at how the legislation is supported via state patronage of training courses for representatives.
Research into what is known about the implementation and operation of OHS employee participation
systems in New Zealand is presented, with particular reference to the health and safety
representative. A future research agenda is proposed.

Introduction
Employee participation is a cornerstone of systematic occupational health and safety management(OHSM), which has become the dominant legislative strategy for improving workplace health andsafety across industrialised nations. Under OHSM, employers are responsible for OHS and have ageneral duty to implement processes for hazard management (Frick, Jensen, Quinlan and Wilthagen,2000). Employee participation is seen as fundamental to this system because workers‟ practicalknowledge of the production process can contribute to the effective management of hazards, andtheir cooperation is seen as vital for OHS improvements to be implemented successfully (Walters
and Frick, 2000). Consequently, contemporary reform of OHS legislation, regulation and policy
throughout many industrialised countries attempts to ensure employees‟ participate in OHSM (Bryce
and Manga, 1985). Participative OHSM is not only embedded in international covenants, such as theEuropean Union Framework Directive 83/391 and ILO Convention 155, but is also a requirement in
the statutes of economies such as Canada, Australia and, more recently, New Zealand. Health andsafety (HS) representatives, or workers mandated to represent workers‟ interests in relation to healthand safety, are commonlyendorsed as the primary model of participation(Walters, 2005).
International research, particularly from Britain, shows legal compulsion is critical in stimulating theestablishment of representative structures for worker participation in OHS (Glendon and Booth,
1982; Leopold and Beaumont, 1982; Lewchuk, Robband Walters, 1996). Legislation provides
guidance on the form and nature of participation and legitimises representatives‟ rights to resources,
thus enabling participation (Walters, 2005).While New Zealand‟s principal OHS statute, the Healthand Safety in Employment (HSE) Act 1992, requires employers to adopt an OHSM strategy (Frickand Wren, 2000), curiously, provisions for employee participation were originally negligible(Harcourt, 1996; Wren, 1997).
Research Officer; Centre for Ergonomics, Occupational Safety and Health; School of Management; Massey University

The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable support and contributions of Dr Kirsten Olsen and Dr Robyn Walker.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
A decade passed and the introduction of the HSE Amendment Act 2002 provided a supporting
condition for employee participation in New Zealand workplaces. For the first time, workers had an
enforceable right to participate in OHS beyond the traditional domain of collective bargaining,with
the HS representative promoted as the primary mechanism for workers to channel their views. Harris(2004: 9) recognised the significance of this amendmentas“break[ing] new ground for New
Zealand”. In effect, the legislation heralded a new era for a country in which legally based employee
participation schemes were eschewed (Harris, 2004), and representative worker participation wasrare (Haynes, Boxalland Macky, 2005). Amendment of the HSE Act gave New Zealand workers
similar rights to workers in other Western industrialised countries and improved conformance withILO Convention 155 (New Zealand Government, 2008).
This paper describes the development and features of current New Zealand OHS legislation, withemphasis on the rights of HS representatives. I explain the genesis and progression of legislation for
employee participation in OHS, which has tended to be framed to support the underpinning ideologyof the prevailing employment relations legislation. It points to training as a necessary part of theinfrastructure to ensure effective employee participation, and looks at what is known about theimplementation and operation of the legislation within workplaces. Questions are raised as to how
representatives are participating in workplace OHSM, and how effective their activity is likely to be
in terms of improving health and safety outcomes and extending employee „voice‟ in managing New
Zealand organisations.

Origins of New Zealand legislation for HS representatives
The possibility of a legal framework for HS representatives was mooted in the early 1980s when
there was a surge of interest in OHS regulatory and administrative reform in New Zealand andabroad (for more on the reforms see Lamm, 1994; 2010; Wren, 1997; 2002). New Zealand‟s tradeunions instigated calls for reform following serious industrial accidents. Unions, with the Labour
Party as their political ally, advocated legislative-based HS representatives and OHS committees as ameans of empowering workers to protect their health and safety. Yet, employers‟ representatives andthe National Party wanted OHS reforms to empower employers to manage OHS and to limit
workers‟ rights to participate in order to minimise potential conflict and disruption (Wren, 1997).
Employee participation, particularly legislative-based HS representatives, became a contentious
political issue that dominated the reform process.
Conflict over legislated HS representatives and committees heightened when capital and labour werebrought together at the Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (ACOSH).
Established in 1985 as a tripartite platform, ACOSH had a broad agenda: OHS legislative andadministrative reform (Wren, 1997). Yet, broader issues were marginalised as the proposed
introduction of compulsory HS representatives and committees dominated the agenda for the first 18
months (Harcourt, 1996). According to Wren (1997), the reason for this dominance was that both
employers and union representatives continually engaged in passionate debate without apparent
compromise or resolution. Unions wanted representatives‟ rights to be protected in law, but
employers resisted the notion of legal compulsion, preferring arrangements to be voluntarily
determined in the workplace subject to employer discretion (Wren, 2002). Indeed, employers
opposed any legal reforms that would give workers greater influence in decisions about OHS andwider issues affecting their working lives, as demonstrated by their objections to statutory basedindustrial democracy schemes proposed by the Committee of Enquiry into Industrial Democracy inthe late 80s (Harris, 2004).
To hasten OHS reform, the chair of ACOSH sought to appease employers‟ and workers‟
representatives by stipulating the introduction of a voluntary code of practice for HS representatives

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
and committees that would become mandatory if uptake was limited. The Department of Labour(DOL) (1987) issued the Code of Practice for Health and Safety Representatives and Health and
Safety Committees to all factories employing more than 10 staff (Mullen, 1990). Employers had noinfluence on the code‟s content (Wren, 1997), which is perhaps the reason for the Employers
Federation simultaneously releasing its own code that, apparently, attempted to minimise union
influence within workplaces (Mullen, 1990).
Accounts suggest that neither code was willingly or widely adopted. For example, of the 427
factories that Moir (1989) surveyed, 51% reported making no changes in response to the codes, while
Mullen‟s (1990) results revealed that only 30% of factories (n=385) were willing to voluntarily adopt
the codes.
Union demands for compulsory representative employee participation appeared to be satisfied whensignificant reform was proposed via the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Bill 1990. The
Labour Government‟s OSH Bill recommended an OHSM framework, including provisions for HS
representatives and committees (Wren, 1997). When Wren interviewed a union official years later,
the official declared: “The OSH Bill really was the union agenda, that was our Bill, that was what we
wanted” (Wren, 1997: 116). However, any union celebrations were short-lived. The OSH Bill waswithdrawn by the National Government after the party‟s victory at the 1990 General Election, whichshifted the influence on legislative reform in favour of employer interests (Campbell, 1995; Wren,
1997). The new National Government handed employers the opportunity to progress OHS reformand redress what they perceived to be a power imbalance that immoderately favoured workers‟
interests.
In 1992, the National Government enacted major OHS legislative and administrative reform bypassing the HSE Act. A policy of state paternalism whereby employers were told which hazards tomanage and how, was abandoned in favour of a system that obliged employers to manage risks
created in the course of business activity by implementing OHS management systems with guidancefrom prescriptive performance standards (Allen and Clarke, 2006; Gunningham and Johnstone, 2000;
Wren, 1997). The HSE Act emphasised employers‟ responsibility for hazard management but
conferred workers few rights to participate (Harcourt, 1996).
Employee participation, a fundamental cornerstone of OHSM, was a victim of this legislative reform
and managerial prerogative was protected and promoted. Unlike the OSH Bill, the HSE Act
contained no legal requirements for HS representatives or committees as these were perceived to beinconsistent with the neo-liberal philosophy that underpinned the concurrent changes to theemployment relations regime (Lamm, 2010; Wren, 1997). Ratification of the Employment Contracts
Act (ECA) 1991 ended nearly a century of centralised conciliation and voluntary arbitration infavour of a decentralised system that gave managers the right to determine terms and conditions of
employment, including OHS (Jeffrey, 1995).
Alignment of the HSE Act with the ECA meant that provisions perceived to obfuscate managerial
prerogative were omitted from the country‟s principal OHS statute (Anderson, 1991). Employers
were obliged to give employees opportunities to assist with hazard management, but these provisions„lacked teeth‟ and were unenforceable (Harcourt, 1996). Rights of workers to participate in OHS
remained weak during the employers‟ ascendency from 1991 to 1999.
Election of the fifth Labour Government in 1999 saw yet another shift in political influence andattempts to ameliorate employer dominance and restore a sense of balance to the employment
relationship. Upon return of the Labour Party to Government, Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson,
proposed a package of employment relations reforms intended to improve workers‟ rights, includingNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
emendations to the HSE Act (Lamm, 2010). OHS legislative reform was prompted by concerns
about the efficacy of the HSE Act to protect workers given New Zealand‟s high rate of occupational
illness, injury and fatality relative to other developed countries (Wilson, n.d.). Wilson and leadershipof the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) agreed that the poor OHS record was
attributable to deficiencies in the HSE Act, particularly the omission of strong rights for employee
participation (Harris, 2004).
In 2001, Margaret Wilson introduced the HSE Amendment Bill, which included provisions forelected HS representatives and OHS committees (Harris, 2004). She saw representative employee
participation as an important mechanism for reducing the county‟s high level of occupational injury
and fatality (Wilson, n.d.). She primarily based this assumption on findings from a British study by
Reilly, Paci and Holl (1995), the reliability of which has since been seriously questioned (Nichols,
Waltersand Tasiran, 2004). The study‟s findings were used to justify that “legislated employee
participation, in the form of health and safety representatives and committees, reduces the overall
costs and incidence of injury by up to 50 percent”(Wilson, n.d.: 3).
Amendment of the HSE Act was also intended to facilitate the aims of the Labour Government‟s
new piece of employment relations legislation, the Employment Relations Act (ERA) 2000 (Wilson,n.d.), which again reflected the Government‟s propensity to couch OHS legislation within thecontext of employment relations policy (Wren, 2002). The ERA‟s objective is: “to build productive
employment relationships through the promotion of mutual trust and confidence in all aspects of theemployment environment and of the employment relationship”(Wilson, 2004: 16). Wilson surmisedthat employee participation in OHS would support the ERA‟s objectives by increasing
communication and cooperation between workers and employers (Lamm, 2010).
Faced with the renewed prospect of legislation for employee participation, employers‟
representatives opposed the HSE Amendment Bill. For instance, Business New Zealand (2002)
questioned the need for the amendment, citing a downward trend in workplace accidents since theintroduction of the HSE Act. Other accounts suggest that, paradoxically, the HSE Act failed to
improve the country‟s OHS performance (Lamm, 2010). Minister Wilson sought to appease
employers by reaffirming managerial prerogative and ensuring that the legislation could
accommodate employee participation schemes already in operation (Harris, 2004). The HSE
Amendment Bill was enacted as the HSE Amendment Act 2002, and contained statutory provisionsfor HS representatives for the first time in New Zealand‟s history.

Legislation for Participation: the HSE Amendment Act’s Provisions for
Employee Participation
Under the HSE Amendment Act, employers are responsible for workers‟ health and safety, but
employee participation is fundamental to this process as it ensures all people with relevant
knowledge can contribute to improving OHS (s.19A). To support this co-operation, the law created ageneral duty on employers to involve employees in OHS.
The HSE Amendment Act requires employers to “provide reasonable opportunities for … employees
to participate effectively in ongoing processes for improvement of health and safety” (s.19B[1]).
These “processes” are referred to in sections 6-13 of the HSE Amendment Act (s.19B [2]) and give
employees the right to: participate in the process of taking all practicable steps to ensure their working environmentis safe and healthy (s.6);

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60






participate in identifying and assessing hazards, including recording and investigating
accidents (s.7);
participate in controlling significant hazards via elimination (s.8), isolation (s.9) or
minimisation (s.10);
results of workplace OHS monitoring (s.11);
information about emergency procedures, hazards and controls (s.12); andtraining and supervision in the use of plant, objects, substances and equipment (s.13).

When determining how employees participate in these processes, employers must consider
workplace contextual variables (s. 19[B]), such as the nature of hazards, whether employment ispermanent or temporary, number(s) of worksite(s) and staff numbers. Employee count is an
important variable because it determines whether an employee participation system is required.
One of the significant changes introduced by the HSE Amendment Act is the obligation on
employers to negotiate with their employees and any relevant union(s) to determine an employee
participation system (Hay, 2003). If a business employs fewer than 30 staff, a request by one
employee or a union representative is sufficient to oblige that employer to develop a system.
Businesses with more than 30 staff must have an employee participation system. Parties to theemployment relationship have to co-operate in good faith to design, implement, maintain and review
a system that allows employees to participate in OHS. The notion of good faith aligns the HSE
Amendment Act with the ERA, and implies that this process is characterised by information sharing,cooperation and trust (Wilson, 2004).
Other than these requirements, the HSE Amendment gives workplaces freedom to determine thenature of their employee participation systems (s.19C). Parties can decide whether employees will
participate in OHS directly with management or via representative channels, such as HS
representatives, OHS committees or both. They also have scope to determine the roles and functionsof these representative participatory mechanisms(DOL, 2002b). Schedule 1A of the HSE
Amendment Act, or the „default system‟, provides guidance on what may be included in an employee
participation system. This system has to be implemented if parties cannot agree on how employees
will participate (s.19D).
Central to the model of employee participation in the default system is the HS representative. The
default system advocates democratic election of representatives, but an election is not required if
there is only one nominee. If there are no nominees, the position should be considered vacant. The
number of HS representatives at a workplace should be determined with reference to contextual
variables, such as the type(s) of work performed and the way in which employees are grouped atworksite(s). A maximum of five HS representatives should participate in OHS committee meetingsand must constitute at least halfthe committee‟s membership. Further, the default system specifies arange of possible HS representative functions. Taken verbatim from Schedule 1A (Part 2),
representatives are:a) to foster positive health and safety management practices in the place ofwork:b) to identify and bring to the employer‟s attention hazards in the place ofwork and discuss with the employer ways that the hazards may be dealt
with:c) to consult with inspectors on health and safety issues:d) to promote the interests of employees in a health and safety context
generally and in particular those employees who have been harmed at

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
work, including in relation to arrangements for rehabilitation and return
to work:e) to carry out any functions conferred on the representative by –i.
a system of employee participation; orii.
the employer with the agreement of the representative or aunion representing the representative, including any
functions referred to in a code of practice.
However, the code of practice referred to in section e) ii does not exist, as consensus could not bereached regarding the content. In 2004, the Minister of Labour appointed a tripartite committee todevelop a code (Wilson, 2005). According to one participant, members lost “goodwill”after a seriesof meetings and the committee dissolved in 2005 as parties struggled to agree on the content,suggesting lingering class conflict. Disagreement centred on whether HS representatives appointed
by management were legitimate and when the default system should become mandatory (Bob White,
Senior Policy Analyst, DOL, personal communication, 8 May 2009). While a code of practice never
eventuated, the DOL produced guidelines to assist with the interpretation of the HSE Amendment
Act (DOL, 2002a,b; 2003).
Under the HSE Amendment Act, HS representatives are also conferred special rights. Notably, they
are entitled to: access information about OHS systems and issues (s.12 [2]); make recommendations about OHS matters to which the employer must implement orprovide a written explanation as to why the proposal will not be adopted (s.19B [4]); and two days paid leave annually to attend approved HS representative training courses (s.19E),
but this is subject to negotiation of the employee participation system.
Further, representatives have rights to advise workers to refuse to perform work that is likely to cause
serious harm (s.28), and to issue their employer a hazard notice (s.46). The latter should describe ahazard and list possible solutions for its control. Notice should only be issued if the employer fails to
address a hazard that the representative has previously raised in an attempt to facilitate a resolution.
Recognising that employers might unfairly discriminate against those who exercise these rights,
representatives have access to personal grievance proceedings if they perceive they have been
disadvantaged because of their OHS activities (ERA s.104 and 107).
These statutory rights provide representatives with a degree of power but are not intended to bearbitrarily used. Rights related to the prevention of harm and hazard notices only extend torepresentatives that have attended approved training courses (s.46A). „Approved‟ means that thecourse has been certified by the Minister of Labour and supports the aims of the HSE Amendment
Act (s.19G). Thus, the HSE Amendment Act explicitly endorses the need for formal training
opportunities for representatives if they are to utilise the avenues of influence available under law.

Provision and Funding of HS Representative Training
The NZCTU was the first organisation to develop a two-day training course for HS representatives,
and to appeal to ACC to fund its delivery (Wilson, 2005). Commentators regarded this as a strategy
to increase union membership (Harris, 2004), which may be why employers initially expressed a“considerable degree of scepticism” towards the initiative (Wilson, 2005). Possibly to convey
political neutrality, ACC agreed to subsidise HS representative training courses delivered by both the
NZCTU and EMA so that all representatives could attend for free or at minimal cost. This funding

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
has helped ensure that, of the 12 institutions approved to train HS representatives, the NZCTU and
EMA are the country‟s largest providers of training for employee participation in OHS (PaulFitzgerald, Employment Relations Education Authority, DOL, personal communication, 12 February2010).Both organisations offer three two-day courses, the content of which is briefly outlined inTable 1. Theoretically, this training should increase representatives‟ capacity to participate in OHS
management in the short-term, ultimately reducing accident and injury rates over the long-run(Johnson and Hickey, 2008).
Table 1. NZCTU and EMA HS representative training course content: stages 1-3

Stage

Content

One

Provides an overview of the HS representative role, OHS legislation andcomponents of OHS management systems (Johnson and Hickey, 2008).

Two

Focuses on the accident investigation process(Johnson and Hickey, 2008).

Three Teaches representatives how to measure OHS outcomes, „sell‟ recommendations for
OHS improvements and informs them about the return-to-work and rehabilitation
processes(EMA, n.d.; NZCTU, 2007).

Government subsidy of HS representative training facilitates operation of the HSE Amendment Act
by relieving employers of the financial costs associated with training representatives. Justification forthis funding is embedded in the DOL‟s Workplace Health and Safety Strategy to 2015, which regards
employee participation as a key injury prevention strategy (New Zealand Government, n.d.).Yet,
despite the apparent centrality of employee participation to New Zealand‟s injury prevention efforts,
economic downturn has seen a reduction in Government funding of HS representative training. Since
2009, ACC only subsidises courses run by NZCTU, EMA and Impac for representatives from highrisk industry sectors, including metal manufacturing, agriculture, construction, forestry, meat
processing, public health and road transportation (Paul Fitzgerald, Employment Relations Education
Authority, DOL, personal communication, 3 December 2008). Transferring training costs tobusinesses in sectors beyond these industry classifications is likely to result in reduced attendance atcourses (Lamm, 2010), thus potentially signalling the erosion of a mechanism shown to support New
Zealand‟s representatives (Johnson and Hickey, 2008). However, the impact of this funding
reduction is yet to be evaluated.

Evaluation of New Zealand’s OHS Employee Participation Systems
In spite of the legal and state patronage of employee participation in OHS, surprisingly little is
known about the implementation, operation or effectiveness of OHS employee participation systems
within New Zealand‟s workplaces (Harris, 2010; Lamm, 2010). The subject has received scantacademic attention but government agencies, under the fifth Labour-led Government, commissioned
social marketing research agencies to conduct some evaluative research (Colmar Brunton, 2004;
Johnson and Hickey, 2008).
Quantitative evaluations of New Zealand’s OHS employee participation systems
Soon after the HSE Amendment Act came into force, theDOL contracted Colmar Brunton (2004) todetermine the Amendment‟s impact on the prevalence and nature of employee participation in OHS
as well as employers‟ attitudes towards the matter. Of a national telephone survey of 600 employers,
the majority (75%) reported that employees were able to participate in OHS, particularly via

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
meetings (business size indeterminate due to contradictory descriptions of participants). Employers
were found to have surprisingly positive attitudes towards employee participation with three quarters
agreeing that employee involvement in OHS was beneficial, the most popular reason being that it
was “important to involve employees in health and safety matters”(Colmar Brunton: 10). It wasargued that employers most favourable to participation were those with representative participatory
structures established at their workplaces, but reporting inconsistencies make it impossible toascertain prevalence. According to Colmar Brunton (2004, Table 6), 16% of employers confirmedthat they had an OHS committee, 35% had HS representatives and 60% had neither. Yet, elsewherein the report, Colmar Brunton (2004) reported that, more optimistically, 49% of the sample had acommittee, 64% had HS representatives and only 27% had neither representative participatory
structures. Disconcertingly, these discrepancies may influence Government policy and are being
perpetuated. For instance, Harris (2004) used the figures in Table 6 of Colmar Brunton‟s report tosuggest that the prevalence of representative structures was low in New Zealand, claiming: “60% of
all employers stated that they had neither a health and safety committee nor a health and safety
representative!” (2004: 7). Additionally, it was impossible to ascertain from Colmar Brunton (2004)
whether participatory mechanisms existed voluntarily prior to the HSE Amendment Act or cameabout in response to it.
Attendance figures at approved HS representative training courses suggest, however, that the HSE
Amendment Act had a stimulatory effect on employee participation. Figure 1 shows that attendance
figures for stage one peaked the year after the HSE Amendment Act came into force, and numbers
have remained steady at between 5,000–6,000 participants. From 2003-2009, a cumulative total of42,233 representatives attended stage one. Yet, only a minority of attendeesappear to progress to theadvanced stages, and training providers cite low attendance from construction, transport and on-hiresectors (Allen and Clarke, 2006).
Figure 1. Attendees at approved HS representative training courses (2003-2009)

Source: Paul Fitzgerald, Employment Relations Education Authority, DOL, personal communication, 12
February 2010

Attendance at training courses has been positively interpreted as an indication that the HS
representative model has traction. In 2005, President of the NZCTU claimed New Zealand‟s HS
representative system had reached “critical mass” (Wilson, 2005), while the DOL (2007) inferredNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
that the volume of course participants suggested there was a “growing pool of skilled andexperienced representatives…making a significant difference to New Zealand‟s occupational healthand safety performance” (p.19). It is unclear whether this statement is speculative or based on
findings from in-house, unpublished research. I found evidence to support the DOL‟s proposition via
an ACC Civil Servant who provided access to Research New Zealand‟s (Johnson and Hickey, 2008)
unpublished evaluation of HS representative training courses. Notably, the combined evaluation of
the NZCTU and EMA‟s courses indicated that HS representatives are potentially improving thecountry‟s OHS performance by contributing to OHSM. Of the 290 attendees interviewed by
telephone, most (>80%) reported facilitating the identification of hazards and communicating OHS
information to workers. HS representatives‟ tendency to focus on operational rather than strategic
OHS activities is a consistent theme internationally (Brun and Loiselle, 2002; Gaines and Biggins,
1992; Hillage, Kersley, Bates and Rick, 2000; Tragardh, 2008).
While Research New Zealand‟s (Johnson and Hickey, 2008) studyprovides insight into how New
Zealand HS representatives enact the role, it shares limitations common to questionnaire surveys.
Notably, it fails to explain the nature and extent of representatives‟ participation, particularly within
the workplace, is restricted to the perspectives of individual representatives and does not develop
qualitative insight into the experiences of HS representatives.
Qualitative evaluation of New Zealand’s OHS employee participation systems
A cross-perceptual study carried out by Harris (2010) serves to complement and enhance knowledge
gained from quantitative studies. Harris‟ two organisational case studies were large metal
manufacturers committed to employee participation in OHS. The investigation focussed on the HS
representative role as it had been interpreted and enacted in New Zealand workplaces within thebounds of the HSE Amendment Act. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with eight
HS representatives and a range of actors shown to influence the representative role, including line
managers, workers, OHS managers, senior managers and a union representative. Thematic analysisof the interviews revealed that, whilst the HSE Amendment Act stimulated the establishment andformalisation of representative employee participation structures, Businesses A and B had diverse
interpretations of the purpose of the HS representative, which seemed to influence role enactment.
Business A introduced HS representatives and an OHS committee to comply with the HSE
Amendment Act and secure an ACC levy discount under the Workplace Safety Management
Practices (WSMP) programme. Yet, in contravention of the legislation, and apparently without
worker opposition or a union to represent worker interests, the OHS manager determined the HS
representative role unilaterally and communicated her expectations „top down‟ to representatives.
The representatives‟ purpose was to take responsibility for OHS management and to provide workers
with an avenue of redress if their health and safety was jeopardised. Unsurprisingly, HS
representatives had a „managerialist‟ interpretation of their role and undertook compliance andmonitoring functions. Two of the four representatives were typecast as „administrators‟ because they
sought to improve health and safety by administering their unit‟s OHS management systems, andwere vital in accrediting the systems to a basic, „primary‟ standard under the WSMP programme.
Business A‟s other two representatives were typecast as „workshop inspectors‟ because they
primarily informed workers of their OHS obligations (e.g. to wear personal protective equipment)
and monitored compliance. They were perceived to have improved workers‟ attitudes towards OHS.
In essence,Business A‟s representatives acted akin to managers rather than workers‟ representatives.
Yet, co-workers perceived that their representatives represented their interests and provided alegitimate channel to articulate OHS concerns.Workers gave the impression that, through theirrepresentatives, they had a greater say in the running of their organisations, findings that may
ameliorate concerns over the „representativeness‟ of managerial defined HS representative systems(Wright and Spaven, 1999).

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60

In contrast to the relative infancy of Business A‟s employee participation system, Business B
institutionalised HS representatives in the 1970s under union auspices to service workers‟ interests.
Still, the HSE Amendment Act prompted the formalisation and expansion of this system beyond theunionised workforce and an employee participation agreement, outlining the HS representative role,
was negotiated between management and workers. Findings suggest that details of this agreement
were generally not well communicated or known, leaving the role to be interpreted „bottom up‟ byworkers and managers. Within this context, representatives used their technical knowledge toparticipate in hazard management, which is perhaps akin to the form of participation that theorists
and legislators envisaged as the appropriate type of engagement. Notably, two of the four
representatives were typecast as „problem solvers‟ because they focussed on seeking technicalsolutions to manage hazards and facilitated improvements to production from an OHS perspective.
The other two representatives acted like „craft experts‟ by asserting specialist craft-based expertise at
OHS committee meetings to influence the development of standards and procedures for the
management of specific hazards. Both of Business B‟s representative „types‟ were perceived to give
workers a legitimate channel to raise OHS concerns.
Harris (2010) also found that, commonly, representatives from both businesses seemed to foster thesecondary aims of the HSE Amendment Act. All appeared to act in good faith to enhance theinterests of management and workers, even though their approaches to the role varied, as
demonstrated by the four identified role types.
HS representatives‟ role enactment appeared to be influenced by a range of factors. A particular
influence was how the purpose of the HS representative was defined and communicated within theorganisation, especially whose interests (management or workers) influenced role definition and how
well expectations were communicated. Also pertinent was representatives‟ expert power based on
their formal skills/qualifications, OHS knowledge, organisational knowledge and ability to form
coalitions. Finally, role enactment appeared to be related to the representatives‟ job roles, which
determined their access to resources and the types of activities in which it was acceptable for them toparticipate.
Harris‟s (2010) findings are, however, likely to reflect „best practice‟ rather than the „norm‟ based on
the choice of research site and industry. For HS representatives to be better placed to improve OHS,
there is a clear need for research into how the role is played out in workplaces throughout New
Zealand.

Future Research Agenda
There remains considerable scope to broaden New Zealand‟s research agenda on employee
participation in OHS. Firstly, it is important to ascertain the prevalence and nature of employee
participation systems within New Zealand workplaces to determine where support should be directed
to improve operation of the law. At present, basic facts such as the prevalence of HS representatives
and OHS committees are unknown (Lamm, 2010). The nature of employee participation systems
established within businesses is also unclear, particularly the extent to which the default system has
been adopted and how representative systems function in combination with the direct participation
systems that seem to be popular in New Zealand (Colmar Brunton, 2004).
Second,provisions for employee participation within the HSE Amendment Act should be evaluatedagainst the purposes for which they were intended. Effort should, therefore, be directed todetermining how employee participation in OHS affects rates of occupational injury. It should be
noted that the relationship between representative employee participation and injury rates is difficult

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
to measure because of significant methodological limitations associated with complex cause-andeffect relations and variations in reporting standards (Shearn, 2005; Walters, 2005). Researchers,
thus, recommend the use of mixed methodologies and triangulation to attain more reliable results(Bryce and Manga, 1985; Nichols, et al., 2004). Other means of measuring changes in OHS
performance, such as assessing improvements to organisations‟HS management operations, can also
be useful proxy indicators of the effectiveness of representative participation (Walters, 2005).
Third, research is needed to determine how provisions for employee participation within the HSE
Amendment Act affect employment relations and employee participation in New Zealand. Importantquestions pertain to the nature of representative participation: how „representative‟ is it and to what
extent are workers able to exercise „voice‟ in the determination of employee participation systems,
but also in operational and strategic decisions as individuals and as part of OHS committees?
Consideration of wider contextual circumstances is essential to enhance understanding of why thelegislation fails and succeeds. Legal protections for HS representatives have remained intact under
the fifth National Government, thereby allaying earlier fears that a change in Government might
jeopardise their statutory rights (Harris, 2004). However, the HS representative system has faced
challenges, particularly recognition that the prevailing economic downturn is likely to negatively
impact on workers‟ ability to participate in OHS (Lamm, 2010; Wilson, 2005). International
evidence suggests that employee participation schemes wane during recessions as managers tend to
be receptive to the views of employees with skills and qualifications in demand on the labour market(Jensen, 1997; Walters and Frick, 2000). Additionally, managers are often more willing to sharedecision-making power with workers if they perceive them to have competent OHS knowledge,
which is often enhanced by workers‟ attendance at HS representative training (Leopold andBeaumont, 1982). Yet, reduced Government funding of HS representative training courses
potentially reduces workers‟ access to OHS knowledge and skills, particularly if they come fromindustry sectors that are not prioritised and funded by ACC. This raises questions about the status of,and support mechanisms for, employee participation in those industry sectors that are not considered„high risk‟ by New Zealand‟s OHS administrative authorities.
In spite of potentially counterproductive economic conditions, other mechanisms could encourage
employee participation. The Partnership Resource Centre and Workplace Productivity Group havehelped to raise awareness of the link between employee participation and productivity (Lamm,
2010). Additionally, the ACC‟s WSMP programme offers financial incentives to businesses that
demonstrate sound OHS management systems, including arrangements for employee participation(ACC, 2008). Harris (2010) found that the WSMP programme motivated a particular business to
implement employee participation. However, further research could explore, more widely, the extent
to which the WSMP programme promotes employee participation in OHS and influences the natureof that participation.

Conclusion
This overview of the development and features of current New Zealand OHS legislation highlights
the significance of the HSE Amendment Act‟s provisions for employee participation in OHS. For the
first time, workers were given a legitimate and enforceable right to participate in matters concerning
their health and safety. HS representatives were introduced to help reduce the country‟s high level ofoccupational injury and illness, and to foster good employment relations. They form a significant
part of New Zealand‟s injury prevention strategy and potentially give workers greater influence overthe conditions under which they are employed to protect their health and safety.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
The historical perspective adopted here suggests that legal support was necessary to establish
employee participation in OHS within New Zealand. Employers, fearing that representatives would
encroach on managerial prerogative, expressed significant political opposition to legislation for
representatives. Evidence shows that there was limited uptake of the voluntary codes of practice for
HS representatives and committees in the late 1980s, so legislation was necessary to stimulate
institutionalisation of these representative participatory structures.
Since the passing of the HSE Amendment Act, attendance figures at HS representative training
courses suggest this model of employee participation has been established in New Zealand
workplaces. While training has shown to be beneficial, this critical support mechanism forrepresentatives is in jeopardy following Government cuts to the funding of course attendees. The
impact of funding changes as well as the HSE Amendment Act‟s provisions for employee
participation in OHS, however, remains to be seen.
Revisiting the origins of the legislation and what is known about employee participation in OHS
within New Zealand workplaces serves as a reminder of the potential contribution that
representatives can make. If the full potential of the HSE Amendment Act to improve working lives
is to be realised, research should be undertaken into the role of HS representatives and employee
participation in OHS more generally. Moreover, research must link back to the spirit and intent of thelegislation, which this paper goes some way to clarifying.

References
ACC. (2008). Measuring your Capabilities in Workplace Safety Management: ACC Workplace
Safety Management Practices Audit Standards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_communications/documents/guide/wcm00
0512.pdf
Allen and Clarke. (2006). Occupational Health and Safety in New Zealand. Technical Report
Prepared for the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (NOHSAC Technical
Report 7). Wellington: NOHSAC.
Anderson, G. (1991), The Employment Contracts Act 1991: An Employers‟ Charter? New Zealand
Journal of Industrial Relations. 16(2): 127-142.
Brun, J-P. and Loiselle, C.D. (2002), The Roles, Functions and Activities of Safety Practitioners:
The Current Situation in Quebec. Safety Science. 40: 519-536.
Bryce, G.K. and Manga, P. (1985). The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees. Relations
Industrielles. 40(2): 257-283.
Business New Zealand. (2002). Joint Responsibility Needed for Health and Safety. Retireved fromhttp://www.businessnz.org.nz/doc/415/Jointresponsibilityneededforhealthandsafety
Campbell, I. (1995). State Regulation of Occupational Health and Safety. In C. Slappendel (ed.)
Health and Safety in New Zealand Workplaces. (pp. 81-116). Palmerston North, New Zealand:Dunmore Press.
Colmar Brunton. (2004), Health and Safety Employee Participation. Retrieved from retrieved
http://www.osh.govt.nz/publications/research/employee-participation-report.pdf

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
Department of Labour. (1987), Code of Practice for Health and Safety Representatives and Healthand
SafetyCommittees.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/archive/safetyrepscode.pdf
Department of Labour. (2002a), Fact Sheet: Employee Participation Systems, Retrieved fromhttp://www.osh.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdfs/employeeparticipationsystems.pdf
Department of Labour. (2002b). Fact Sheet: Health and Safety Representatives. Retrieved fromhttp://www.osh.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdfs/healthsafetyrepresentatives.pdf
Department of Labour. (2003). Involving Employees in Safety at Work: Developing an Approach that
Suits your Workplace. Retrived from http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdf/employeeinvolve.pdf
Department of Labour. (2007), Workplace Health and Safety Strategy for New Zealand to 2015:
Snapshot of Progress 2006/07. Retrieved from http://www.dol.govt.nz/whss/snapshot06-07/WHSSStrategy-snapshot06-07-monotone.pdf
EMA. (n.d.), Health and Safety Representative Training - Stage 3. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ema.co.nz/Learning/Health_And_Safety_Representative_Training_Stage3.html
Frick, K., Jensen, P.L., Quinlan, M. and Wilthagen, T. (2000). Systematic Occupational Health and
Safety Management – an Introduction to a New Strategy for Occupational Safety, Health and WellBeing. In K. Frick., P.L. Jensen., M. Quinlan and T. Wilthagen. (eds.). Systematic Occupational
Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an International Development. (pp.1-16). Oxford:
Elsevier Sciene
Frick, K. and Wren, J. (2000). Reviewing Occupational Health and Safety – Multiple Roots, Diverse
Perspectives and Ambiguous Outcomes. In K. Frick., P.L. Jensen., M. Quinlan and T. Wilthagen.
(eds.). Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an International
Development (pp. 17-42). Oxford: Elsevier Science
Gaines, J. and Biggins, D. (1992). A Survey of Health and Safety Representatives in the Northern
Territory. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand. 8(5): 421-428.
Glendon, I. and Booth, R.T. (1982). Worker Participation in Occupational Health and Safety in
Britain. International Labour Review. 121(4):399-416
Gunningham, N. and Johnstone, R. (2000). The Legal Construction of OHS Management Systems.
In K. Frick., P.L. Jensen., M. Quinlan and T. Wilthangen. (eds.). Systematic Occupational Healthand Safety Management: Perspectives on an International Development (pp. 125-148). Oxford:
Elsevier Science
Harcourt, M. (1996). Health and Safety Reform: A Review of Four Different Approaches. Journal ofIndustrial Relations. 38(3): 359-376.
Harris, L-A. (2010). Health and Safety Representatives’ Contributions to Occupational Health and
Safety: Case Studies from New Zealand’s Metal Manufacturing Sector: A Thesis Presented in Partial
Fulfilment of a Master of Business Studies in Human Resource Management. Palmerston North, New
Zealand: Massey University.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
Harris, P. (2004). From Health and Safety to Employee Participation? The Impact of the New
Zealand Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act (2002). International Employment
Relations Review. 10(1): 1-12.
Hay, D.M. (2003). Employee Participation: A Handbook for Health and Safety Representatives.
Palmerston North: Workplace Press
Haynes, P., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2005). Non-Union Voice and the Effectiveness of Joint
Consultation in New Zealand. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 26(2): 229-256.
Hillage, J., Kersley, B., Bates, P. and Rick, J. (2000). Workplace Consultation on Health and Safety(Contract Research Report 268/2000). Health and Safety Executive.
Jeffrey, G. (1995). The Industrial Relations Context of Workplace Health and Safety. In C.
Slappendel (ed.). Health and Safety in New Zealand Workplaces (pp. 157-180). Palmerston North:Dunmore Press.
Jensen, P.L. (1997). Can Participatory Ergonomics Become „The Way We Do Things in This Firm‟– the Scandinavian Approach to Participatory Ergonomics. Ergonomics. 40(10): 1078-1087.
Johnson, M. and Hickey, L. (2008). Health and Safety Representative Training Evaluation (Research
Report #3550). Wellington: Research New Zealand.
Lamm, F. (1994), Australian and New Zealand Occupational Health and Safety: a Comparative
Analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 32(2): 57-77.
Lamm, F. (2010). Participative and Productive Employment Relations: The Role of Health and
Safety Committees and Worker Representation. In E. Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships:
Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand (pp. 168-184), Auckland: Auckland University
Press.
Leopold, J.W. and Beaumont, P.B. (1982). Joint Health and Safety Committees in the United
Kingdom: Participation and Effectiveness – a Conflict? Economic and Industrial Democracy. 3: 263284.
Lewchuk, W., Robb, A.L., and Walters, V. (1996). The Effectiveness of Bill 70 and Joint Health and
Safety Committees in Reducing Injuries in the Workplace: The Case of Ontario. Canadian Public
Policy. 22(3): 225-243.
Moir, R. (1989). Safety Reps Code Not Well Known. Safeguard, 2:20-21.
Mullen, E.A. (1990). Voluntarism in Occupational Health and Safety: The New Zealand Response.
New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations. 15: 129-143.
New Zealand Government. (n.d.), Workplace Health and Safety Strategy: Strategy.Retrieved fromhttp://www.dol.govt.nz/whss/
New Zealand Government. (2008). Health and Safety In Employment Amendment Bill (No 2):
Explanatory Note. Retrieved from http://www.brookers.co.nz/bills/current/b082411.pdf

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 45-60
Nichols, T., Walters, D., and Tasiran, A.C. (2004). The Relation Between Arrangements for Healthand Safety and Injury Rates - The Evidence-Based Case Revisited (Working Paper Series Paper 48).
Retrived from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/wrkgpaper-48.pdf
NZCTU. (2007). Stage Three Health and Safety Rep Training: Course Outline. Retrieved fromhttp://union.org.nz/sites/union.org.nz/files/Stage%20Three%20Course%20Outline.pdf
Reilly, B., Paci, P. and Holl, P. (1995). Unions, Safety Committees and Workplace Injuries. British
Journal of Industrial Relations. 33(2): 275-288.
Shearn, P. (2005). Workforce Participation in the Management of Occupational Health and Safety.
Retrieved from http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0509.pdf
Tragardh, B. (2008). The Role of Health and Safety Representatives in Sweden – the Implementationof the EEC Directive 89/391. Studies of Organization and Society. 1
Walters, D. (2005). A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of Representation and Consultation
on Health and Safety at Work (Report for the Accident Compensation Corporation). Retrieved fromhttp://worksafereps.org.nz/davidwalters
Walters, D. and Frick, K. (2000). Worker Participation and the Management of Occupational Healthand Safety: Reinforcing or Conflicting Strategies? In K. Frick., P.L, Jensen., M. Quinlaw. and T.
Wilthagen (eds.). Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an
International Development (pp. 43-66). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Wilson, M. (n.d.). Change to the Health and Safety in Employment Act: Employee Participation.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/publications/hseamend-cabinet/cabinetparticipation010717.pdf
Wilson, M. (2004), The Employment Relations Act: A Framework for a Fairer Way. In E.
Rasmussen (ed.) Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act (pp. 9-21).
Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Wilson, R. (2005). Worker Participation: A Key
http://union.org.nz/policy/worker-participation-a-key-to-successtoSuccess.

RetrievedfromWren, J. (1997). Understanding the Process of Change in Occupational Safety and Health Policy inAdvanced Industrialised Democracies: An Examination of the International Literature, and theExperience of New Zealand Between 1981-1992: A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfilment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey
University.
Wren, J. (2002). From the „Balksanisation of Control‟ to Employer Management Systems: OHS
Policy and Politics in New Zealand 1981-1992. In M. Lloyd (ed.). Occupational Health and Safety in
New Zealand: Contemporary Social Research. (pp. 43-66). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Wright, C. and Spaven, M. (1999). Who Represents Whom? The Consequences of the Exclusion ofUnions from the Safety Representation System in the UK Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Employee
Relations. 21(1): 45-62.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

New Zealand Employer Attitudes and Behaviours: What are the
Implications for Lifting Productivity Growth?
ERLING RASMUSSEN* and BARRY FOSTER**
Abstract
This article addresses two issues. First, the rise of individualism in New Zealand employment
relations as collective bargaining coverage has declined. Second, the effect this rise in individualism
is having on achieving a high wage, high skill economy. In its discussion, the article draws on
previous work on the historical rise of individualism, with a special emphasis on developments
under the Employment Relations Act (ERA) 2000. The article focuses on the role of employer
attitudes and, based on results from surveys of private sector organisations employing 10 or more
staff, employers‟ dislike of collective bargaining and unions dominates findings. Finally, the article
asks whether individualism can be aligned with a productive, high wage and high skill economy. It
is argued that it is more likely that the economy will end up in a low skill, low wage situation.

Introduction
This paper connects two debates which are often discussed separately. First, it discusses the rise ofindividualism in employment relations and the role that employer attitudes and strategies haveplayed in this shift. Second, the paper overviews the economic and social implications of the rise inindividualism and, in particular, how this raises doubts whether a high wage, high skill economy
can be achieved. Although the paper is concerned with comparatively relevant theoreticalexplanations, issues and trends, it takes its empirical starting points in New Zealand surveys andanalyses. While several explanatory factors have been associated with the decline in collective
bargaining, this paper focuses on the role of employer attitudes and strategies as a key explanatory
factor. As proposed in the Strategic Choice Theory (Bamber, Lansbury and Wailes, 2004; Kochan,
McKersie and Cappelli, 1984), this has also been aligned with a more active role ofmanagement/employers in influencing and framing the employment relations agenda.
In investigating a shift to individualism in employment relations in New Zealand, a national surveyof firms employing 10 or more staff was conducted (Foster, Murrie and Laird, 2009a; Foster,Rasmussen, Laird and Murrie, 2009b). Overall, the survey found that employers have little interestin collective bargaining. However, there are two distinct groups amongst employers: if employers
are involved in collective bargaining, they have a more relaxed and positive approach to collective
bargaining as opposed to employers who are not involved. With a strong employer preference forindividual bargaining, the future of collective bargaining in New Zealand looks grim. Furthermore,
the leading employer confederation – Business New Zealand – has been opposed to a developmentof industry-level collective bargaining. It also voiced its opposition to the 2000-2007 employment
relations reforms, which have favoured collective bargaining and increased statutory employment
minima (Burton, 2004; 2010; Foster and Rasmussen, 2010).

*

Professor Erling Rasmussen is in the Management Department, Auckland University of Technology.
Barry Foster is in the Management School, Massey University, Palmerston North**

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
While the rise in individualism is clearly aligned with employer preferences, it may raise serious
obstacles for particular approaches to achieving a high-wage, high-skill economy (McLaughlin,2010). In evaluating these obstacles, the so-called New Zealand „experiment‟ is an appropriate
example, given that the current employment relations has incorporated two different approaches:the first being one of the most deregulatory public policy approaches to employment relations
amongst OECD countries, which was followed in the new millennium by the public policy
approach inspired by European „social democracy‟ understanding (Haworth, 2004).
Unfortunately, these attempts have failed to move the New Zealand economy onto a high-wage,
high-skill path. However, there appears to be different reasons for their failure. The New Zealand„experiment‟ has shown that there can be several issues with pursuing a deregulatory approach to
employment relations. These issues have included low productivity, low wages and employment
conditions, growing social inequities, limited investments in infrastructure and upskilling (Dalziel
and Lattimore, 1999). Subsequently, the economy has struggled to overcome the fallout from theseissues in the new millennium (Rasmussen, 2009).
The post 2000 „social democracy‟ approach has also had limited success as it assumes strong
collectivism will ensure industry solutions and decent employment standards across the economy.
However, the rise in individualism has undermined the role of collectivism and, thus, some kind of„functional equivalents‟ is necessary to pursue this reform path. In most cases, legally extended
employment standards, including higher statutory minima, would be an obvious option. This would
probably raise political opposition since employers are often waging war on statutory minima
increases in the name of „flexibility‟ and „affordable labour costs‟.
On that background, the „low road‟ can easily be the preferred option for at least a significant
section of the labour market. This became a serious issue in New Zealand after the 2008 economic
downturn as a National-led Government has pursued increased „flexibility‟ and lower compliancecosts. This has also been a recurrent issue in other Anglo-American countries with the USA being
the prime exponent (O‟Toole and Lawler, 2006). Whether this will become the dominant scenario
has been discussed as some commentators have debated if ILO‟s decent work agenda andestablishing international labour standards have gained traction (Haworth, Hughes and Wilkinson,
2005: Standing, 2008). It can also be pointed to that many OECD countries have witnessed theintroduction of more comprehensive statutory minima and improved individual employee rights inrecent years. Thus, „the jury is still out‟ and this is what makes the debate of path-breaking changes
to New Zealand employment relations and their economic and social impacts so fascinating.

The Historical Rise in Individualism
New Zealand employment relations has been in turmoil for at least the last 25 years. It has
witnessed major changes in the 1980s, the 1990s and post 2000. The Employment Contracts Act(ECA) 1991 facilitated a sharp shift from industry and occupational based bargaining to workplaceand individualised bargaining, a steep decline in union density and new forms of employee
representation (Dannin, 1997). There was also a remarkable expansion of individual employee
rights in terms of human rights, privacy and personal grievance rights as employment regulation
covered all employees (Rasmussen, Hunt and Lamm, 2006). As such, the 1990s witnessed a radical
shift towards individual employment agreements being the dominant mode. It is also important tostress that a rise in individual employment rights fitted well with the National Government‟s antiunion strategy in the early 1990s. However, these rights became less popular amongst conservative
politicians in the second half of the 1990s and this view has re-appeared under the post-2008
National-led Government (see below).

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

It is more difficult to explain how individual employment rights have continued to rise under the
Labour-led Governments in the new millennium. These Governments promoted a new form of„social democracy‟ with an emphasis on collectivism, public-private collaboration and workplacepartnership (Haworth, 2004). The new legislative framework supported explicitly collective
bargaining and unionism, and was seen as a deliberate attempt to overcome the contractualism andindividualism of the ECA (Wilson, 2004a). This included several measures to bolster unions: better
workplace access, exclusive bargaining rights for registered unions, „good faith‟ bargaining
obligations and abolishing strike restrictions on multi-employer bargaining (for overviews, see
Rasmussen, 2004; 2009; 2010). While union membership has increased in the public sector and,while unions have become more visible under the ERA, there has been little improvement in overall
union density and in the private sector, union density has dropped by 50% in the new millennium toaround 9% in late 2008 (Blumenfeld, 2010).
Why did union density decline in the private sector when the legislation was explicitly (in its
objectives and in its intent) supporting collectivism? This is a rather complex issue and it isprobably fair to say that no definitive answer has been provided. In an overview of existing research(Rasmussen and Walker, 2009: 129-133), it has been suggested that the following explanatory
factors have been important:the existence of a „representation gap‟
the unions‟ inability to gain ground on multi-employer collective agreements
employee apathy or lack of interest
employer resistance or lack of support.

The work by Haynes, Boxall and Macky (2006) and Charlwood and Haynes (2008) have attempted
to explain the reasons why there is a representation gap. Based on an analysis of the New ZealandElection Study surveys, Charlwood and Haynes (2008: 104) found that “receding union reach” (ie. a„representation gap‟) was a core explanation of union decline during 1990-2002. As this alludes toawards and „blanket coverage‟ being abolished by the ECA 1991, this is probably not surprising.
However, Charlwood and Haynes (2008: 104) “largely discount structural factors as causes of union
decline” which, considering that New Zealand has experienced more structural changes than mostother OECD countries, is rather surprising and should prompt further research. They also discountemployer resistance as a major cause of union decline in New Zealand. The work by Waldegrave,
Anderson and Wong (2003) also came to the conclusion that employee apathy was a contributing
factor to union decline.
Rasmussen et al. (2006) have also argued that the rise in individual employment rights have,undoubtedly, had some influence on employee interest in union membership. In the 1990s, theextension of individual employment rights was in line with the Government‟s liberal thinking andanti-union stand. The Labour-led Governments‟ position is rather more contradictory since
employment relations promoted both collectivism and individual employment rights. In fact, theextension of statutory minima was considerable and has changed employment conditions for many
people in the lower end of the labour market. Given that background, Rasmussen et al. (2006)
asked why employees should become union members if the main employment gains were provided
through Government intervention? This is also supported by McNeil, Haworth and Rasmussen(2010) in their analysis of different regulatory impacts. Again, it is important to stress that there is alack of research into union membership decline, and that the rise in individualism is just one factor
amongst many.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
Likewise, although we focus on employer attitudes below, employer antipathy (or employees‟
perception of negative employer attitudes) can only be seen as one of several factors in a rather
complex decision-making process surrounding collective bargaining and union membership (seeBryson, 2008). Still, employer attitudes, behaviour and strategies have become crucial ininfluencing the employment relations outcomes and processes in New Zealand as employment
relations have been decentralised, union presence has declined, and individualised employment
arrangements and rights have increased. The real issue in connection with this paper is, however,that long-term productivity benefits can be hard to envisage and so can the link to a high wage, highskill economy.
Where to now?
In late 2008, there was a political power shift when a National-led Government gained office.
Interestingly, employment relations was hardly discussed and the National Party announced
explicitly that it would keep the ERA, though with some modifications. However, it has beensuggested that “the National Party‟s policy would involve considerable change to the existing
public policy platform.” (Rasmussen and Walker, 2009: 168)1 as it sought to implement thefollowing changes:






Removing the union monopoly bargaining rights for collective agreements to allow nonunion workers to enter into collective agreements;
Reviewing personal grievance procedures;
Introducing an optional „probationary period‟ where new employees would not have accessto personal grievance provisions;
Reducing compliance costs, and in particular, removing ACC‟s monopoly over workplace
injury insurance;
Revisiting the Holidays Act.

Some of these changes have already been implemented, some of them are still being considered andfurther changes have started to be discussed. Most of the changes point in the opposite direction to ahigh-wage, high-skill economy. For example, are reducing statutory minima the way to encourage
employers to improve wages and other employment conditions? It also appears that a short-term
solution allowing people to „sell‟ one week of annual leave when most people only have four weeks
annual leave entitlements and when long working hours have become a well-recognised problem(Callister, 2005). Furthermore, following the Government‟s announcement of 32 proposed policychanges in August 2010, employment relations has, once again, a higher profile in the public policy
debate (Haworth, 2010b; Hodge, 2010; Kay, 2010). Yet, there are few public policy analyses whichlink employment relations changes to the wider economic debate about New Zealand‟s relative
decline (However, see Business New Zealand, 2009; Haworth, 2010b).
As Rasmussen and Anderson (2010: 218-220) have illustrated, the policy changes promoted by the
National Party have clear links to the defunct policies of the 1990s. The main difference is that theenvisaged changes come into play in a piecemeal fashion, and thus, public policy changes appear
less of a frontal attack on collective bargaining, unions and employee conditions, compared to thepolicies of the 1990s. Instead, it appears as if the piecemeal efforts to deal with specific issues werean attempt to generate some immediate economic gains through providing employer cost relief.
Taking a totally different tack, the union movement has indicated that legislative change to support
collective bargaining and unionism is high on their agenda. This has included calls for some kind ofextended bargaining coverage, though the traditional terms of awards and blanket coverage are yet
to appear. “A new approach to the law would also enable collective bargaining results achieved byunions to be available to all workers across industries, including those enterprises not directlyNew Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
involved in the bargaining” (Kelly, 2010: 146). This emphasis on industry and multi-employer
collective bargaining cuts across the attitudes of the vast majority of employers, as shown below. It
is also a diametrically different approach than that pursued by the National-led government andsignals that employment relations will be unstable and a major political battleground for years to
come.

Employer Attitudes to Collective Bargaining: Survey Evidence
In New Zealand, there has been limited research into the employers‟ attitudes to collective
bargaining or even to employment relations matters in general. The sparse available research
indicates, however, that there has been an attitudinal shift in favour of individualism and unitarist
employer opinions in the last couple of decades. For example, a 1986 survey found that pluralist
ideology was prevalent amongst managers (Geare, 1986). Likewise, McAndrew and Hursthouse(1991) concluded that employers preferred national agreements as opposed to enterprise agreements
because of the increased costs and greater chances of conflict associated with the latter. It seems
obvious to many observers that the ECA has facilitated a stronger employer animosity towards
collectivism and this has continued under the ERA (Burton, 2004; 2010; Foster and Rasmussen,2010). This is also in line with recent surveys of employer attitudes, which have concluded thatmanagers have become more unitarist in their opinions about employment relations in theirworkplaces (Geare, Edgar and McAndrew 2006; 2009). Recent research conducted by the
Department of Labour (2009) has further buttressed the idea that employers are quite happy with
conducting direct bargaining/negotiations/discussions with their employees but, as a group, they
have limited time or trust in unions and collective bargaining.2
Using previous studies as a springboard, researchers from Massey University and Auckland
University of Technology decided to survey employer attitudes to collective bargaining. The
intension was to explore how much employer attitudes had shifted since the above mentioned
survey of McAndrew and Hurtshouse (1991). It also investigated whether there were a range of
employer attitudes and, if so, what factors were influential in explaining difference.
Three surveys were carried out providing a national coverage of private sector organisations which
employed 10 or more staff (for a more detailed description, see Cawte, 2007; Foster et al. 2009a;
Foster and Rasmussen 2010). These were undertaken using a cross-sectional survey design where
the surveys matched the sample demographics used by previous New Zealand studies (McAndrew
1989; McAndrew and Hursthouse 1991). It also allowed the entire population of employers (6800
individual firms) to be surveyed, and covered employers within all 17 standard industry
classifications which had been used by previous researchers (for example, see Blackwood,
Feinberg-Daneili, Lafferty, O‟Neil, Bryson and Kiely, 2007). The three surveys involved a selfadministered questionnaire in two regions (the lower half of the North Island and the South Island),a hard copy was mailed to respondents and in the third region (the upper half of the North Island),an online survey was used. The response rates ranged from a disappointing 8% for the online survey
to 19% and 21% respectively for the two postal surveys.
Respondents’ Attitudes to Collective Bargaining
We have already discussed findings in our other reports and articles (for references, see Foster andRasmussen, 2010) and we will focus on two distinct groups of employers in this paper. Thus, Table
1 asks: how do the attitudes of employers who are engaged in collective bargaining compare withthose employers who are not engaged in collective bargaining? The table highlights those variables
that are of significance to employers‟ attitudes toward the process of collective bargaining (such as,

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
the interest of employees in the process, its relevance to the business, and whether collective
bargaining has been considered at all). Taken as a whole, those variables showed marked
differences between the two groups of employers. Of those engaged in collective bargaining, only
21% believed their employees lacked interest in the process. Of those not engaged, the proportion isreversed with 70.1% arguing that their employees lacked any form of interest in collective
bargaining.
Table 1 – Respondents attitudes to collective bargaining
VariableTakes too long
to bargain
Transactionalcosts too high
Employees notinterestedCB
notrelevanttobusinessCB
neverconsidered
Lack of info on
how to bargain
Unsure what tobargain aboutCB
adds
nothingofvalue
tobusiness
Individual
bargaining
offers greater
benefits
Unionshas
neverapproached us
about CBEngaged in CEA, n (%)
Disagree Unsure
Agree

Not engaged in CEA, n (%)
AgreeDisagree Unsure127(39.4)

165(51.2)30(9.3)265(40.8)99(15.3)

284(43.8)101(31.8)

165(50.1)51(16.1)

227(35)81(12.5)

340(52.5)67(21)

215(67.2)

38(11.9)457(70.1)

41(6.2)154(23.6)51(15.9)

252(79)18(5.6)487(74.1)

94(14.3)

76(11.6)(P<0.000)#

***
***
***

***
20(6.2)292(91)9(2.8)

489(74.8)

117(17.9)48(7.3)51(16)

219(68.4)50(15.6)

214(33.1)

190(29.4)

243(37.6)16(5)296(92)10(3)195(29.9)367(56.2)91(13.9)98(30.5)

183(57)40(12.5)515(78.3)51(7.7)92(14)

***
***
***

***
152(47.2)

119(36.8)51(15.8)

485(73.8)68(10.4)

104(15.8)***49(15.3)

265(82.8)6(1.8)

578(87.7)52(7.9)29(4.4)***# Chi-squared test for differences in more than two proportions. *** (P<0.000)

The survey and the semi-structured, face-to-face responses highlight stark differences in employers‟
opinions. In particular, the strong individual approach clearly prevailed among employers, as thestatements show:“Our staff have had no desire to negotiate collectively. To be honest, the staff are
not interested”.
“The employees at my place prefer to deal with me face to face rather thanbeing represented by a third party. There is ability for them to discuss theirindividual performance rather than being locked into a collective agreement”.
Differences were also found in the proportion of respondents who agreed that collective bargaining
was not relevant to their business. Amongst those employers involved in collective bargaining,New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
15.9% agreed that it was not relevant to their business versus 74.1% amongst those not involved. In
the interviews, some employers involved in collective bargaining found that it was not relevant
because of the quality of the relationship with the union or because the workplace had no major
problems (according to the manager). These were typical comments:”With our current one I wouldn’t say that it offers any benefits or is of relevance. I believethat if you have a good union who works with you in partnership then it can be very
productive”.
”I just honestly see no value – we don’t have employment disputes. It’s a happy workplace”.
Further strong differences were found when employers were asked if they had considered engaging
in collective bargaining, with 74.8% of non-involved employers having never done so against 6.2%
of involved employers. It is interesting to note that some employers (30%) involved in collective
bargaining agreed with the point that individual bargaining offers greater benefit. This implies thatthose employers would probably prefer individualised bargaining but it is not a realistic option forthem at the moment. This stance also featured strongly in the interviews. Here is a typical example
of opinion amongst those employers involved in collective bargaining but who consider that
individual bargaining offers greater benefit:“I don’t think they got anything through collective bargaining that we would not have ifthey were on individual agreements. We only go through the motions as the ERA requires
us to negotiate with the union”.
In the interviews, a number of employers involved in collective bargaining also felt that collective
bargaining encouraged mediocrity:“I think as far as all the issued stuff they get, like boots, gear and that, should all be in acollective employment agreement, but as far as wages go, some of our guys really deserve a
pay rise and some don’t. With collective bargaining, then they all get it. Some people you
would love to give a rise, others you don’t. I think wages should be on an individual basis.”
However, 57% of employers involved in collective bargaining disagreed that collective bargaining
would add nothing of value to the business. From the interviews, it would appear that this was themain position among employers who have a good working relationship with the union (or unions).
Below are typical responses amongst employers who think that collective bargaining can add
something of value to their business:“The whole process of the agreements is a lot quicker and a lot smoother. We like to haveunion involvement”.
“The benefits of collective bargaining for us are that it is easier to manage with one
package”.
Finally, those involved in collective bargaining found that the transactional costs were high (50.1%
agreed). This was the overwhelming opinion across all employers and it was strongly expressed in
the semi-structured interviews. As one employer said:“There is a huge cost in the bargaining process. Our team consists of the HR manager andadvisor, chief commercial officer and an EMA [Employers and Manufacturers Association]

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
person. It costs us lost wages and time and the administration process of costing out theclaims is considerable”.
Overall, it is important to note that the employers who are engaged in collective bargaining
constitute a clear minority and even amongst these employers, there is criticism of bargaining
processes and associated outcomes. Generally, employers have a negative attitude towards
collective bargaining and unionism, and they would prefer to conduct their employment relationsaffairs in direct discussion with individual employees.

The Long-Standing Issue of Low Productivity Growth
Comparatively slow productivity growth has been a long-standing problem in New Zealand, refer toFigure 1. From having one of the highest living standards (measured in gross domestic product perhead) in the 1950s, there has been a persistent comparative decline in New Zealand‟s living
standards, currently sitting below number 20 amongst OECD countries. This comparative decline
has influenced the so-called New Zealand „experiment‟ and has prompted radical public policychanges. The decline has also influenced the thinking behind employment relations reforms. The
ECA tried to create an „efficient labour market‟ through facilitating employer-driven flexibility andthe ERA sought to facilitate „productive employment relationships‟. Neither of these legislative
frameworks has brought about the anticipated improvements in productivity growth. It is still
debated in New Zealand as to why and to what degree this has happened (see Haworth, 2010a;
Rasmussen, 2009: 447-455). In respect of the ECA, it has been suggested that the policy
prescription may have been wrong and/or the context was not supportive enough (for example, interms of infrastructure investments). In case of the ERA, the emphasis on collectivism andcollaboration did not manifest itself and there was considerable catch-up investment in, forexample, infrastructure, education and social problems. Some commentators – including many
employer organisations – have also disputed the different employment relations approach.
Whatever the explanations, the comparative decline in New Zealand‟s living standards andproductivity has now become a mainstay of news reports. As mentioned above, employment
relations has temporarily regained its high profile role and it is likely to be a major issue in the 2011
General Election. The big question is whether the current employment relations approach is putting
New Zealand on the track towards a more productive economy, and thus, breaking the relative
economic decline seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Source: Treasury, 2008

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

Can individualism be aligned with a productive, high-wage, high-skill economy?
The leading employer organisation, Business New Zealand, has clearly voiced the employer
opposition to many of the employment relations changes under the previous Labour-led
Governments in 2000-2008. This has been supported by various other employer organisations and„think tanks‟, including the high-powered Business Roundtable. For example, in response to New
Zealand‟s lowest growth in productivity in 31 years, Business New Zealand argued, in a press
release, that New Zealand should implement a Productivity Commission (as in Australia) andneeded “things like more flexible employment law, lower taxes and a smaller complianceburden…” (Business NZ, 2010).3 These arguments are in line with Business New Zealand‟sbriefing to the incoming Government in 2008 where it advocated more flexibility and freedom inthe workplace. There appears to be two problems with this argument: first, it is difficult to associate
the higher Australian productivity growth with „flexible employment law, lower taxes and a smaller
compliance burden‟. Second, the implied suggestion that legislative support of more individualism
may encourage greater competitive flexibility and innovation which would then drive higher
productivity appears to have little empirical basis. For example, the productivity experience of the
1990s, where employers had a remarkable free hand in terms of establishing their preferred working
arrangements (see Boxall 1997, Deeks and Rasmussen, 2004: 165-169), does not provide aconvincing scenario.
Generally, it is unclear how employer preferences for workplace and individualised employment
relations can be part of a successful attempt to build a sustainable route to a high-wage, high-skill
economy in New Zealand. As discussed below, there seems to be at least three types of issues
associated with this approach.
1. There are few major New Zealand owned firms (except Fonterra) and industries which haveshown substantial growth recently, and arguably too few industry-level collaborative solutions
exist which can establish a sustainable economic growth path.
2. The lack of major collaborative solutions is particularly noticeable in the training and skills area
because the key actors appear to have some overlapping interests. Recently, management
capabilities have been raised as a crucial training and skills issue.
3. There is a distinct lack of a broadly based „plan‟ of how to inform and persuade employers to
adopt more productive employment relations approaches.
4. Employer aversion to mandatory minima and/or collectively agreed minima facilitates a low
cost, low skill „equilibrium‟ where mainstream employers have to compete with employers who
have rock-bottom employment conditions and invest little in their staff.
First, under the Labour-led Governments a number of initiatives were taken to developed industry
growth paths and there was direct support for several „sunrise industries‟ (Haworth, 2010). These
efforts have had some success but they were limited in funding and coverage and have hadinsufficient impact across the economy. Employer organisations have been involved in some ofthese initiatives and they have set out alternative growth strategies. For example, Business New
Zealand (2009) has set out a wide-ranging 50 points plan to lift productivity levels but there havebeen limited Government action in many of the suggested areas of policy change. This may come,however, if the 2011 General Election results in another National-led Government. Overall, theaction plans suggested by Business New Zealand (2009) build on the assumption that private sector
initiatives will drive the lift in productivity growth. This view is somewhat problematic since low
private sector investments have become a major issue.4 In light of the absence of industry„locomotives‟ and comprehensive government growth plans, it is unclear whether the Business New
Zealand approach will overcome the current issues surrounding productivity growth.

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

Second, in the training and skills area, there has been considerable overlap between employer, unionand Government interests (Burton, 2010; Wilson, 2004b). This was illustrated by the launch of a
new Skill Strategy for New Zealand in 2008, which was supported by employers, unions andGovernment (Tertiary Education Commission, 2008). Even in this area of overlapping interests,
there appears to be ample room for improvement. This has been illustrated by wide-ranging skill
shortages pre-2008 and concerns about the propensity to „free-ride‟ amongst small and medium
sized employers. In a survey of employers‟ perspectives on skill shortages, Baron and McLaren(2006) found that employers were openly pessimistic about the prospects of any improvement in the
supply of skilled labour (especially qualified trades people) over the medium to long-term future.
Importantly, Baron and McLaren found that employers were split on how to rectify the situation.
Employer opinions ranged from suggesting a more active role, supporting existing vocational
training schemes to expressing support for the old industry training system that was disestablishedin the early 1990s. And this does not address the underlying problem that many employers do notinvest sufficiently or at all in vocational training or have well-defined career paths (Hunt andRasmussen, 2007; Williamson, Harris and Parker, 2008). It is unclear how an individualised
approach will deal with this problem, especially in light of the prevalence of small and mediumsized firms.
A particular problem in terms of skills and capabilities concerns management capability in New
Zealand, especially competent and inspirational leadership of organisations. This issue has beenclearly signalled by the research sponsored by the New Zealand Institute of Management (NZIM)‟sresearch on management capabilities (Matheson, 2009). That research has wide implications since,
if organizations in New Zealand want to compete nationally and internationally, then they need tobe effective in areas such as employee engagement and focus on innovation. As New Zealand
Trade and Industry (NZTE, 2011) has argued: “Businesses are only as successful as their owners
and managers. In an ever-changing world it is essential that you actively build your management
capabilities.” However, the NZIM research has shown that implementation of these ideas is weakin New Zealand compared to other countries who see these measures as a priority (Birchfield,2011). Several possible reasons have been advanced for this problem with management capabilities
and leadership (Birchfield, 2011; Geare et al., 2009). It may be the smallness of our economy andorganisations where budgets and resources can be tight which may comprise efforts to enhance
management capabilities. It is often argued that „quick fix‟ measures prevail. Another impediment
to insufficient capabilities and the lack of leadership can be the culture of the organisation.
Third, there is a distinct lack of a broadly based „plan‟ of how to inform, persuade and make it easy
and cost effective for employers to adopt more productive employment relations approaches. Again,
the many small and medium-sized businesses constitute a thorny problem. This has been recognisedin the area of information where there has been considerable effort in the new millennium.
Employer organisations have been active in their provision of information and services. They havealso been involved in and supportive of government initiatives (Burton, 2010). For example, theDepartment of Labour now has a raft of online information and application options, and there havebeen a string of workplace „demonstration case studies‟, which the Partnership Resource Centre andWorkplace Productivity Group have promoted (see Haworth, 2010). Still, there appears to be ample
room for improvement. In the survey of employer opinions discussed above, we asked employers
about the quality of information and the practical value of the information on collective bargaining
and good faith which they received from their business organisations. The majority of respondents
found the information either poor (25.4%) or just adequate (38.8%). We also asked employers what
they thought of the advice from the Government and the results were similar. Interesting, there wasgreater concern amongst small to medium-sized enterprises than amongst larger organisations. As
larger organisations will often have specialist staff or can afford consultants who can advise them,New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
this leaves the many small and medium-sized employers in the lurch. If these employers are notreceiving good advice then what do they do?
Fourth, the preference for workplace and individualised employment arrangements and, inparticular the constant criticism of statutory minima changes, opens the gate for low paying and low
productivity employers (as McLaughlin (2010) has argued). This has clearly been the trend under
the post-2008 National-led Government (see above), where both collective and individual
employment rights have been seen as barriers to more „flexible‟ employment arrangements. It ispuzzling that there has been pressure from employer organisations to reduce employment standards
as this makes it easier for mainstream employers to be undercut by „cheap labour‟ employers. Ifneither collective bargaining nor statutory minima are seen as suitable ways of lifting employment
standards, then higher employment standards can only happen through employer competition for
staff. Although such competition has been driving up employment conditions in the newmillennium (until the post-2008 economic crisis), it has also been associated with labour market„bottlenecks‟ and insufficient productivity improvements. This is exactly the „low skill, low wage
equilibrium‟ that McLaughlin (2010) talks about. Again, it is difficult to see how such an approachcan establish a sustainable basis for the elusive high skill, high wage economy.

Conclusion
The rise in individualism and workplace bargaining has coincided with growing concerns overdisappointing productivity growth, and that combination has had a major impact on public policy
debate in New Zealand. There have been serious attempts of path-breaking in respect of
employment relations and this has happened to a large degree. Within a radically changed economic
and social context, current New Zealand employment relations has moved a long way. As shown,
the regulatory framework, the institutional setting (including collective bargaining) and the attitudes
and behaviours of the key players have shifted considerably in a matter of two or three decades. As
such, the New Zealand „experiment‟ in employment relations changes is of comparative interest if
one is interested in mainstream employment relations research areas: employment regulation, union
renewal, employer attitudes and strategies, protection of employee rights, employee influence andparticipation, high performance work systems, etc.
However, it is still unclear how the on-going shift towards workplace and individual bargaining canbe aligned with the aspirations of higher productivity growth. As New Zealand lacks major New
Zealand-owned industrial giants (except in the dairy industry), there are few key firms or industries
which can establish sufficient strong leadership in terms of economic growth and productive work
practices. It is also problematic that efforts in the area of vocational training have fallen short,
despite this being an obvious area where tripartite collaboration could have prospered with
employer organisations voicing their support. It is highly likely that a new economic upswing willfeature skill shortages. New Zealand appear trapped in a „low skill, low wage equilibrium‟ and thisis further aggravated by a latent „brain drain‟ of highly educated people because of thecomparatively low wages in New Zealand.

Notes
1

The importance of these changes has been debated in New Zealand with some researchers arguingthat the current Government‟s labour law reform is not that substantive (see eg. Hodge 2010).

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76
2

As the Department of Labour (2009) research draws on some of our survey results, it is important
to be aware of this when findings are reported. However, the Department of Labour research had abroader focus as it also included focus groups and interviews with practitioners, employer andunion representatives, and academic researchers.
3

The Productivity Commission was enacted by the current National-led Government in December
2010
4

However, a recent survey of the IT, high-tech manufacturing biotech sectors (the „TIN 100‟) has
found that growth, revenues and employment were all significantly up, compared to 2010 (seeO‟Neil, 2011).

References
Bamber, G.J., Lansbury, R.D. and Wailes, N. (2004). International and Comparative Employment
Relations. (4th ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin
Baron, P. and McLaren, E. (2006). Overcoming Skill Shortages: Employer Perspectives andStrategies. Research Report. Auckland, Labour Dynamic Research Programmes: Massey
University.
Birchfield, R. (2011, July). Leadership‟s Looming Crisis. New Zealand Management Magazine.
p.16021
Blackwood, L., Feinberg-Daneili, G., Lafferty, G., O‟Neil, P., Bryson, J. and Kiely, K. Employment
Agreements: Bargaining Trends and Employment Law Update 2006/2007. Industrial Relations
Centre: Victoria University, Wellington.
Blumenfeld, S. (2010). Collective Bargaining. In E. Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships:
Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand. (pp. 40-55). Auckland: Auckland University
Press
Boxall, P. (1997). Models of Employment and Labour Productivity in New Zealand: anInterpretation of Change Since the Employment Contracts Act. New Zealand Journal of Industrial
Relations. 22(1): 22-36
Bryson, A. (2008). Union Free-riding in Britain and New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations.
50(1): 5-24
Burton, B. (2004). The Employment Relations Act According to Business New Zealand. In E.
Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act. (pp. 134144). Auckland: Auckland University Press
Burton, B. (2010). Employment Relations 2004-2008: an Employer View. In R. Rassmussen (ed.).
Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland
University Press.
Business New Zealanad. (2009). Setting New Zealand Apart. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessnz.org.nz/file/1702/SETTING%20NZ%20APART.pdf

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

Business New Zealand. (2010). Poor Productivity Stats Show Need for Productivity Commission.
Retrieved fromwww.businessnz.org.nz/doc/1854/PoorproductivitystatsshowneedforProductivityCommission
Callister, P. (2005). Changes in Paid Working House for Couples, 1986-2001. New Zealand
Journal of Employment Relations. 39(2): 51-64
Cawte, T. (2007). Employers Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining: a Comparative Study.
Honours Degree Dissertation. Massey University, Palmerston North.
Charlwood, A. and Haynes, P. (2008). Union Membership Decline in New Zealand, 1990-2002.
Journal of Industrial Relations. 50(1): 87-110.
Dalziel, P. and Lattimore, R. (1999). The New Zealand Macroeconomy: A Briefing on the Reforms.
Auckland: Oxford University Press
Dannin, E. (1997). Working Free: the Origins and Impact of New Zealand’s Employment Contracts
Act. Auckland: Auckland University Press
Deeks, J. and Rasmussen, E. (2002). Employment Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Pearson
Education New ZealandDepartment of Labour. (2009). The Effect of the Employment Relations Act 2000 on Collective
Bargaining. Retrieved from http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/collectivebargaining/collective-bargaining-2009.pdf
Foster, B. and Rasmussen, E. (2010). Employer Attitudes to Collective Bargaining. In E.
Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions and Employers in New Zealand. (pp.
116-132). Auckland: Auckland University Press
Foster, B., Murrie, J. and Laird, I. (2009a). It Takes Two to Tango: Evidence of a Decline in
Institutional Industrial Relations in New Zealand. Employee Relations. 31(5): 503-514.
Foster, B., Rasmussen, E., Laird, I. and Murrie, J. (2009b). Employer Attitudes Toward Collective
Bargaining : Surveys of Employers‟ Role and Attitudes in New Zealand. Paper presented at 15th
IIRA World. Sydney, August 2009. (On CD - ISBN 978-0-9806755-1-1).
Geare, A. (1986). An Examination of Certain Aspects of Industrial Relations Ideologies:
A Theoretical Analysis and an Empirical Study. PhD Thesis 87 30270. New Zealand: University ofOtago.
Geare, A., Edgar, F. and McAndrew, I. (2006). Employment Relations: Ideology and HRM
Practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 17(7): 1190-1208.
Geare, A., Edgar, F. and McAndrew, I. (2009). Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study ofideology, high commitment and unionisation. International Journal of Human Resource
Management. 20(5): 1146-1171.
Haworth, N. (2004). Beyond the Employment Relations Act: the wider agenda for employment andsocial equity in New Zealand. In E.Rasmussen (ed.), Employment Relationship: New Zealand’s
Employment Relations Act. (pp. 190-205). Auckland: Auckland University Press

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

Haworth, N. (2010a). Economic Transformation, Productivity and Employment relations in New
Zealand 1999-2008. In E. Rasmussen (ed.), Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions andEmployers in New Zealand. (pp. 149-167). Auckland: Auckland University Press
Haworth, N. (2010b, August 29). “Fire at will” Measure Damaging to Labour Performance andEconomy. Sunday Star-Times. p. A6.
Haworth, N., Hughes, S. and Wilkinson, R. (2005). The International Labour Standards Regime: aCase Study in Global Regulation. Environment and Planning A. 37: 1939-1953.
Haynes, P., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2006). Union Reach, the „Representation Gap‟ and theProspects for Unionism in New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations. 48(2): 193-216
Hodge, B. (2010, August 22). What‟s all the Fuss about the 90-day Trial Period? Sunday Star
Times. p.A6
Hunt, V. and Rasmussen, E. (2007). Turnover and Retention in a Tight Labour Market Reflecting
on New Zealand Research. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 32(1): 45-58.
Kay, M. (2010, August 14). 90-day Trial of Union Muscle. Dominion Post. p.B3
Kelly, H. (2010). „Challenges and opportunities in New Zealand employment relations: a CTU
perspective.‟ In E. Rasmussen (ed.), Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions and Employers in
New Zealand. (pp. 133-148). Auckland: Auckland University Press
Kochan, T., McKersie, R.D. and Cappelli, P. (1984). Strategic Choice and Industrial Relations
Theory. Industrial Relations. 23(1):16-39.
McAndrew, I. (1989). Bargaining Structure and Bargaining Scope in New Zealand: the Climate of
Employer Opinion. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations. 14(1): 133-148.
McAndrew, I. and Hursthouse, P. (1991). Reforming Labour Relations: What Southern Employers
Say. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations. 16(1): 1-11.
McLaughlin, C. (2010). Building a „High Road‟ Economy? The Employment Relations Act in an
International Perspective. In E. Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions andEmployers in New Zealand. (pp. 185-207). Auckland: Auckland University Press
McNeil, J., Haworth, N. and Rasmussen, E. (2010, March). Addressing the Productivity Challenge?
Government-sponsored Partnership programs in Australia and New Zealand. Paper, Newcastle
University, Australia.
Matheson, D. (2009, August). How Capable Are Kiwi Managers? New Zealand Management
Magazine. p. 24-25.
New Zealand Trade and Industry (2011). Business Training Services. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nzte.govt.nz/develop-knowledge-expertise/business-training-services/pages/businesstraining-services.aspx

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 36(2): 61-76

O‟Neil, R. (2011, October 30). High-Tec Sector Beats the Bank. Sunday Star Times.Retrieved fromhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/5872066/High-tech-sector-beats-the-bankO‟Toole, J. and Lawler, E.E. (2006). The New American Workplace. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Rasmussen, E. (ed.). (2004). Employment Relationship: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act.
Auckland: Auckland University Press
Rasmussen, E. (2009). Employment Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Pearson Education
Rasmussen, E. (ed.). (2010). Employment Relationships. Workers, Unions and Employers in New
Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press
Rasmussen, E. and Anderson, D. (2010). Between Unfinished Business and an Uncertain Businessand an Uncertain Future. In E. Rasmussen (ed.). Employment Relationships: Workers, Unions andEmployers in New Zealand. (pp. 208-223). Auckland: Auckland University Press
Rasmussen, E., Hunt, V. and Lamm, F. (2006). Between Individualism and Social Democracy.
Labour & Industry. 17(1): 19-40.
Rasmussen, E. and Walker, B. (2009). Employment Relations in the Millennium. In E. Rasmussen(ed.). Employment Relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Pearson Education
Standing, G. (2008). The ILO: An Agency for Globalization? Development and Change. 39(3):355-384.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2008, January 30). Partnership to Increase Workforce Skills
Announced Today. Media Release. TEC: Wellington.
Waldegrave, T., Anderson, D. and Wong, K. (2003). Evaluations of the Short Term Impacts of the
Employment Relations Act 2000. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/ERA%20Evaluation.pdf
Williamson, D., Harris, C. and Parker, J. (2008). I Love You – Goodbye: Exit Interviews andTurnover in the New Zealand Hotel Industry. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations.
33(3): 70-90.
Wilson, M. (2004a). The Employment Relations Act: a Framework for Fairer way. In E. Rasmussen(ed.). Employment Relationship: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act. (pp. 9-20). Auckland:
Auckland University Press
Wilson, R. (2004b). The Employment Relations Act: a CTU perspective. In E. Rasmussen (ed.).
Employment Relationship: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act. (pp. 21-38). Auckland:
Auckland University Press