New Zealand
Journal of
Employment
RelationsFebruary 2006 • Volume 31 Number 1

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2006), 31(1): 1
New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, February 2006, vol. 31, no. 1

Contents
A Note from the Editor
Rupert Tipples

1

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm’: Skill formation in New Zealand’s
agriculture sector
Nicky Murray
Improving employment relationships – Findings from learning interventions in farm
employment
Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine and John Petheram
Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring, and Employment Relations Change in
New Zealand and Australia
Marjorie Jerrard
Getting produce from the New Zealand paddock to the European plate – reducing
supply chain vulnerability through the management of employment Relations criticalcontrol points
Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
Chronicle
Colin Ross and Erling Rasmussen

- 2 - New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2006), 31(1)A Note from the Editor
In the ‘cold turkey’ years after subsidies were withdrawn from farmers in the 1980s, belts
had to be tightened and farm labour was an unnecessary cost. As a consequence farmwork, (whether as employer or employee) lost its gloss. By the end of the 1990s, rural
fortunes were improving but a shortage of farm staff rapidly became apparent. That led
to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry putting out a contract to investigate ‘Skill andlabour requirement in the primary sector’, resulting in a report tagged ‘People make thedifference’ (Morriss, Tipples, Townshend, Mackay and Eastwood, 2001). Rural fortunes
continued to improve into the new millennium and the labour shortages continued to bitedue in part to the very low level of unemployment across the economy.
A pan primary Human Resources Workshop in Agriculture was held in Rotorua in July
2002, financed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s Sustainable Farming Fund,to help address the issue. The Rotorua Workshop set up a pan industry organisation toaddress the staff and skills shortages, again with financial help from the Sustainable
Farming Fund. Eventually, the organisation was called `Human Capability in Agricultureand Horticulture’ as the meeting at Rotorua had been set in the context of the Departmentof Labour’s Human Capability Framework (Tipples, 2004a and b).
Persistent labour shortages led to a burst in primary industry labour research, somefunded by Human Capability in Agriculture and Horticulture, while other research was
supported by commodity-levy funded industry bodies such as Dairy InSight. The labour
shortages also stimulated student thesis and dissertation work. Human Capability inAgriculture and Horticulture initiated a range of projects, from a foundational initial
Research Stocktake of the sector’s human and social research (Tipples and Wilson, 2005)
to a range of pragmatic activities, such as the coordinated promotion of rural careers.
Innovative responses to the shortages came from all parts of New Zealand. Some of these
initiatives established long lasting practical measures which have continued to address the
problems of the long term nature of the staff shortages. One such initiative in the remote
Amuri basin of North Canterbury led to the formation of the Amuri Dairy Employers
Group (ADEG), which addressed the problems of its locality by developing the first New
Zealand employment relations model of its type. It developed its own Code of
Employment Practice before the Good Employer code resulting from the Employment
Relations Act 2000. Further it established employer training to help recruit and retain
quality dairy farm staff for the Amuri. Extensive employee training opportunities werealso provided as well as a social programme to help combat the isolated nature of thearea. The group established its own logo for members to use, helping to identify them as‘approved’ employers. To help achieve employer compliance with the approved
standards, Investors in People were engaged to audit member employer practices, with afocus on improvement and achievement of the desired standards. The activities of thegroup radically reduced employee turnover, reduced time to fill vacancies, and provided
good numbers of quality applicants for jobs with good skills (Edkins, 2003; Edkins andTipples, 2003).

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2006), 31(1) - 3 The role of training for developing farm staff has also been highlighted by Nicky Murray,
whose PhD thesis looked at skill formation as part of the broader employment relations
landscape. Good training practices are now seen as essential to maintain the high rates ofgrowth of labour productivity which the sector has experienced, which are essential tomaintain international competitive advantage for New Zealand’s agricultural exports.
Murray’s case study of agricultural training “Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm’:
Skill formation in New Zealand’s agricultural sector” is the first article in thisAustralasian issue on the primary sector.
The second article is by Ruth Nettle, whose article with Mark Paine and John Petheram“The Employment Relationship – a conceptual model developed from farming casestudies” appeared in this journal last year. Nettle has been involved in ‘in-depth’
qualitative research on dairy farm employment relations in rural Victoria, work whichaligns with Edkins’ research described above. Essentially, both have demonstrated thatlittle changes until dairy farmers undergo a real change of values, which enables them toavoid the recruitment and retention problems previously described. Nettle reports howlearning interventions can improve farm employment relationships. She suggests thattraditional approaches, such as improving HRM procedures to reduce recruitment andretention problems, are not particularly effective and that a significant cultural change isnecessary. Then she reports on two ‘learning interventions – the first involves only theemployer while the second intervention involves both employers and employees – andconcludes that appropriate learning interventions can catalyse employment change. If
dairy farms are considered to be a specialist form of small business, then these
conclusions have significant ramifications for improving employment relations in all
forms of small business.
The third article addresses the downstream processing sectors for meat products.
Marjorie Jerrard looks at the meat industry in Australia and New Zealand, which she also
covered in her PhD. As she points out, change is an on-going process on both sides of
the Tasman. Collective activity, which was not apparent in the primary production sector,
is very evident but often strongly opposed. Consequently, the meat industry, which is aform of production-line technology, has experienced its share of industrial strife.
However, that has been less apparent in recent times and Jerrard concludes by describing
the unions as survivors of various restructuring processes, and the employers as thewinners.
The fourth article addresses a different type of problem, the employment relations of the
supply chain from New Zealand to markets in the northern antipodes, typically in Europe,
but most particularly in this case in the United Kingdom. Although research onwaterfront conflicts has occurred (e.g. Green, 2001) no previous account seems to haveaddressed this particular issue, the employment relations of what must be, in geographicalterms, some of the world’s longest supply chains. The article focuses on a major problem
for most of New Zealand’ agricultural export industries: how to get seasonal produce
from the New Zealand paddock to the British plate in best and most marketablecondition. To highlight the employment relations concerns of the supply chain a casestudy is made of New Zealand apples. This case study was facilitated by excellent

- 4 - New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2006), 31(1)cooperation from World Wide Fruit Ltd., the largest importer of fruit into the UK market,
who provided critical information.
With primary sector exports forming such a significant part of the New Zealandeconomy, a detailed consideration of the employment relations of the sector seemedmuch overdue. It is hoped that readers will find the papers both informative and thoughtprovoking.
Rupert Tipples.
Lincoln University,
Canterbury.
6 May 2006.

References
Edkins, R. (2003) Dairying and Employment in the Amuri: 1983 to 2002. M.Com (Ag)thesis, Lincoln University.
Edkins, R. and Tipples, R. (2003), The Amuri Employers Group: Its formation, operationand effects, Primary Industry Management, 6(4): 8-10.
Green, A. (2001), British Capital, Antipodean Labour – Working on the New Zealand
Waterfront 1915-1951. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.
Morriss, S; Tipples, R; Townshend, W; Mackay, B and Eastwood, C (2001) Skill andlabour requirement in the Primary Sector -“People make the Difference”. Report
prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Massey and Lincoln Universities.
73pp.
Nettle, R., Paine, M. and Petheram, J. (2005), The Employment Relationship – aconceptual model developed from farming case studies, New Zealand Journal of
Employment Relations, 30(2): 19-35.
Tipples, R. (2004a), The Human Capability Framework – An important and usefulframework for understanding the labour market? New Zealand Journal of Employment
Relations, 29(1): 3-20.
Tipples, R. (2004b), A solution to too few working down on the farm – The Human
Capability in Agriculture and Horticulture initiative, Proceedings of the 11th. Labour,
Employment and Work Conference , Victoria University of Wellington, 22 November.
Tipples, R. and Wilson, J. (2005), “Project: Research Stocktake”, CD Human Capability
in AgHort – New Zealand and Australia Research Stocktake (involving the Dairy, Deer,
Horticulture and Meat and Wool Sectors): Wellington. Sustainable Farming Fund (www.
Maf.govt.nz/sff). 53pp.

- 2 - Nicky Murray

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm’:
Skill formation in New Zealand’s agriculture sector
Nicky Murray‫٭‬
Abstract
Skill formation is a crucial feature of the broader employment relations landscape.
There is a growing recognition within the agriculture sector that good education andtraining practices are an important part of the solutions to many of the challenges facing
farming. The New Zealand agriculture sector is defined by particular labour market andemployment relations issues, which must be understood in an historical context. These
factors have implications for skill formation in agriculture. This paper provides a brief
history of labour market issues within the agricultural sector, before discussing thecurrent agricultural training situation. Canterbury dairy-farming is used as a case study.
Introduction“Agriculture and forestry continue to play a critical part in the New
Zealand economy. Attracting, training and retaining the right people will
be vital for the primary industries to continue to grow their contribution to
New Zealand and its economic revival.” (Morriss, Tipples, Townshend,
MacKay & Eastwood, 2001: 3)
Not only is agriculture the archetypal New Zealand industry, agricultural products1
remain the mainstay of New Zealand’s exports, earning 53% of New Zealand’s total
merchandise export value in the year to June 2004 (Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, 2004). The shape of the agriculture sector2 in New Zealand can becharacterised by three main components. First, its prosperity is largely dependent uponinternational markets. Second, productivity is comparatively high, fuelled bytechnology and innovation. Finally, many New Zealand farms are small, family
enterprises. The sector is also defined by particular labour market and industrial
relations issues, which must be understood in an historical context. These factors all
have implications for agriculture industry training policies. This article, which is based
upon a case study from my PhD thesis (Murray, 2005), gives a history of the
agricultural sector and its labour market issues, before discussing the current
agricultural industry training situation.
Agriculture in New Zealand has changed significantly over the past decade, with lessemphasis on sheep-farming and strong growth in dairying and horticulture. Since 1992,
the number of agriculture and fisheries workers has fluctuated, mirroring the changing
strength of farm exports: “Export conditions are the main influence on employment
trends in the primary sector” (Department of Labour, 2003: 1). From 1992 to 2004, thenumber of agriculture and fisheries workers declined by 3.6%, compared with a 29.7%
growth in the total number of people employed, and their proportion of the workforce
has also declined, from 11% in 1992 to 8% in 2004 (Statistics New Zealand, 2005).
Nevertheless, the primary sector has experienced a significant increase in labour
productivity over the last 15 years: “…real output per worker has increased by a third,‫ ٭‬Nicky Murray PhD, is currently working in a Workforce Development and Research role at theCommunity Support Services Industry Training Organisation.
1
Meat, dairy products, fish, fruit and vegetables and other primary products (Canterbury Development
Corporation, 2003)
2
This paper focuses on farming, as opposed to forestry and horticulture.

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 3from $33,000 in 1988 to $44,000 in 2002, one of the highest increases in labour
productivity across the different industries” (Department of Labour, 2003: 4).

History
While the early pattern of farming in New Zealand was dominated (economically, if notnumerically) by large-scale pastoralism, the introduction of refrigeration in 1882
changed the nature of the export market. By the 1890s, meat and dairy products joinedwool as the staple exports, making smaller-scale family farms viable. The establishmentof these farms was encouraged by bush clearance and the acquisition of Maori land in
the North Island, and by the gradual breaking up of many of the large estates in theSouth Island (Martin, 1990). This new model of farming was heavily reliant on the
farmers’ labour, and that of their families. In the 1926 census, for example, 60 per centof farmers reported hiring no labour, and farmers outnumbered rural labourers(Brooking, 1996).
The intensive nature of farming and the imperatives of producing for refrigerated export
led to a ready acceptance of mechanisation and scientific and technological advances.
Thus, between 1896 and 1926, the percentage of the workforce engaged in the primarysector had dropped from approximately 42 per cent to 30 per cent; “…mechanization offarming, which proceeded steadily from the later nineteenth century on, not only
substituted capital for labour but also, with help of new scientific procedures, increased
productivity” (Brooking, 1996: 236).
Productivity growth accelerated after 1938, while the percentage of the labour force
engaged in agriculture continued to decline. The proportion of the active working
population engaged in agriculture has now stabilised at around eight per cent, still oneof the highest rates in the OECD (Morriss et al., 2001). The ‘dramatic’ increase in
output per employee was the result of ongoing mechanisation, and greatly improved
farm management practices, such as fertilisation, and crop and animal husbandry(Hawke, 1996). These changes required a more skilled work force, and an increasing
degree of business acumen on the farmer’s part.
The post-war years were the hey-day of the family farm, with the number of farmholdings rising from 86,239 in 1946 to a peak of 92,395 in 1955. As land prices
increased, however, and the size of an economic unit rose, the numbers involved infarming began to decrease, and by 1972 the number of farm holdings had fallen bynearly a third. The composition of the labour force also altered as the number of small
farms decreased, so by 1971 farm labourers comprised 41 per cent of the farming labour
force (Dunstall, 1996).

The Agricultural Labour Market
Greater reliance on hired labour engendered a vulnerability to shortages in that labour
supply. This was not a new issue in New Zealand; the mismatch of the rural labour
force with the needs of farmers had been a major theme during New Zealand’scolonisation phase. The situation was volatile, with dire shortages of labour through the1850s, which continued into the 1860s as agricultural workers flocked to the goldfields.
During Vogel’s expansionist phase, the government intensified the ongoing effort to
attract “…that very desirable class of emigrants, agricultural labourers and country

- 4 - Nicky Murraymechanics” (Vogel, 1874; cited in Martin, 1990: 19). The success of this immigration
policy, however, became problematic as the ‘long depression’ that began in 1879 caused
a contraction in the rural economy. Wage rates dropped and unemployment increased,
exposing the predominantly seasonal nature of much rural work, and increasing thenumber of itinerant ‘swaggers’ (Martin, 1990).
As the depression ended, and the twentieth century began, the rural economy entered aprosperous period. The nature of the sector had changed dramatically, however, asfamily farms and mechanisation “…undercut the role of rural wage earners…[and]simultaneously diminished the need for seasonal workers and increased local sources oflabour” (Martin, 1990: 197). The development of contracting systems for harvesting andshearing smoothed out seasonal labour demand, contributing to a relatively stable
agricultural labour market.
Nevertheless, debate about the extent and nature of labour supply issues has remained acommon theme. Concerns expressed at the 1963 Agricultural Development Conference,for example, have been echoed in reports and conferences through to the present day.3
Many of the recommendations ensuing from the 1963 conference are also current
concerns, such as the need to provide positive publicity about farming to school leavers(for a recent example, see Tipples et al., 2004: 5). The requirement for responsiveness tointernational trends and economic fluctuations by New Zealand’s agricultural sectormeans that labour shortages can often be unpredictable; based upon capricious seasonal,
regional or product-specific changes4 (Morriss et al., 2001).

Employment Relations in the Agricultural Sector
The predominance of smaller, family farms may help account for the particular natureof employment relations in the agricultural sector. Despite often poor wages andconditions, farm labourers had generally a less adversarial relationship with theiremployers than workers in the secondary sector. There was some militancy in the earlytwentieth century, as the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers’ Union
applied, in August 1907, to the Court of Arbitration for minimal standards of protection.
This was viewed by farmers as a test case to ascertain if farming could be brought under
the arbitration system. The Court’s recommendations conceded some of the union’s
demands, but refused to grant any award, farming being considered too important to thecountry to be unionised (Martin, 1990). Industrial matters in agriculture continued to be
dealt with separately “…because of a perceived need for special arrangements andbecause of the power of farmer organisations to influence political decisions” (Angove,
1994: 155). Thus, from 1936 farm workers’ wages and conditions were set by Orders in
Council made under the Agricultural Workers Act 1936.
Although some categories of farm workers were union members, over 30,000 stock,
station and dairy farm workers had little or no statutory protection. An attempt wasmade in 1973, via the Agricultural Workers Amendment Bill, to give these workers
3

Cameron Report, 1984/85; Anderson, 1988; Agricultural Innovation Conference, 1991; Agricultural
Strategy Council, 1991; Riddell Report, 1991/92; GAT – Capturing the Opportunities Conference, 1994;
Morriss, Anderson & Parker, 1997 (Morriss et al., 2001: 5).
4
For example, in the late 1970s the burgeoning kiwifruit industry experienced severe, but localised,labour shortages during harvest time; and the rapid growth of the dairy industry in Canterbury, Otago andSouthland from the mid-1990s has precipitated another shortage of skilled and experienced labour(Morriss et al., 2001).

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 5union representation under the New Zealand Workers’ Union. The resultant outcry fromfarm workers, however, resulted in the formation of the Farm Workers Association(FWA):“Farm worker antagonism to the threat of blanket union coverage wasbased on the perception of a shared community of interests with farmers,
and a negative attitude to unions that had been hardened over time…Eventhough redress of wages and conditions was needed, it was widelybelieved that union activity would destroy the special relationshipbetween worker and boss and damage prospects of upward social
mobility through land ownership.” (Angove, 1994:157)
The FWA avoided the taint of unionism by being voluntary and non-militant. The
organisation achieved some successes through the mid to late 1970s, including
encouraging training. The FWA advocated a career structure in agriculture and had
representation on the Telford Training Board, the Agricultural Training Council and at
Lincoln College. However, the organisation was never well supported by the bulk offarm workers, many of whom were ‘free-riders’ under voluntary membership. Given
that the catchment of members was characterised as “…mobile, dispersed, conservativeand influenced by the attitudes of employers [and] ambivalent in their own attitudes
because of their self-perception as future farmers…” it is hardly surprising that the
FWA eventually disintegrated in the mid-1980s (Angove, 1994: 169).

Industry Training in Agriculture
Clearly, then, the agricultural labour market has several significant characteristics thathave implications for the way in which industry training is organised. Farmers’ attitudes
to training, and the response of the formal education sector, have also been the subjectof debate:“Agricultural education over the past century has been characterised by ageneral reluctance on the part of farmers to train in any formal sense of
the word, and by the apparent failure of agricultural training institutions
to communicate effectively with farmers who have learnt farming by
farming.” (Moore, 1990: 23)
While agricultural degrees were available at Lincoln College (established in 1878) and
Massey University (established in 1927), trade courses in farming were not offered until
the formation in the late 1940s of the New Zealand Technical Correspondence Institute(Moore, 1990; Morriss et al., 2001). Pressure for some form of farm cadet scheme
mounted throughout the 1950s and early 1960s and the first Farm Cadet Scheme annual
conference was held in 1966 (Morriss et al., 2001). The scheme was run by Federated
Farmers, with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF), andcadets studied for trade certification while completing a minimum of three years
practical farming.5 There were 1600 farm cadets in 1985, but this number had dropped
to just over 1000 by 1988, representing only approximately one per cent of the farming
workforce (Moore, 1990).

5

Trade Certificate in farming was introduced in 1971, with Advanced Trade Certificate following in 1974
(Morriss et al., 2001)

- 6 - Nicky Murray
Despite fluctuations in industry involvement with the cadet scheme, depending on
economic cycles, the cadetship model enjoyed strong industry support, with a
Horticultural Cadet Scheme established in 1976, an Equine scheme in 1982 and a Pork
scheme in 1985 (Robertson, 1990; Morriss et al., 2001; Riddell, 1992). These werecollectively known as the Primary Industry Cadet Schemes (PICS).6 Riddell (1992: 17)argued that “…farmers prefer[ed] cadets to young people trained in most of theinstitutions…”, and spoke of the importance of the ‘investment in kind’ from industry,in the form of voluntary administrators and farm trainers.
Farm training institutes were mooted in 1958 by the Consultative Committee on
Agricultural Education. Two of these were established at Telford and Flock House,providing one-year practical and academic course for school leavers. Another institute,
Taratahi, had been set up in 1919 as a training farm for men returning from the FirstWorld War. In the early 1950s, the focus of this institute moved to training young
people aged 16 to 20 years (Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre, 2004). From 1974,
the training institutes also ran block courses for those entering farming via the Land
Settlement Scheme farm ballots. Once this scheme was scrapped in 1984, however,numbers in training at the institutes dropped dramatically,7 compounded by the fee
increase engendered by the ‘full cost recovery’ required (Moore, 1990).
Morriss et al. (2001) set out the recent history of primary industry education andtraining, highlighting five distinctive eras. The Agriculture Development Conference of
1963 marked the beginning of the first era, (that of agricultural production), during
which the main focus of agriculture, and of agricultural training, was maximisingproduction, mainly for export to Britain. The 1970 Training in Agriculture conference
recommended the formation of an Agricultural Training Council (ATC), which was
duly established in 1971. One of the main contributions of the ATC was the productionof training guides for farm tasks, which allowed some examinations to be replaced withinternal assessment, a precursor of competency-based training (Moore, 1990). This
‘production’ era ended when Britain joined the European Economic Community in
1972.
The need to find new markets heralded the next era, the ‘marketing’ era. No longer was
it sufficient merely to learn to produce a commodity; business and marketing skills also
became essential. The agriculture industry was still heavily subsidised, withgovernment-supported agricultural extension, education and training services. In theearly 1980s, the Prime Minister, RD Muldoon had looked to the farming industry tosalvage an economy under siege. Billions of dollars, acquired through overseas
borrowing, were poured into the pastoral industry; directly, through subsidies andindirectly, through an overvalued exchange rate (Jesson, 1987). During this era, theMinistry of Agriculture and Fisheries was responsible for vocational level training
through the primary industry cadet scheme and farm training institutions. The Cameron
Report of 1984/1985 indicated that “…Government was looked to as the provider offunds and significant leadership in Agricultural Training” (Riddell, 1992: 1).
Government subsidy, however, became an anathema after the election of the fourthLabour government in 1984. This era is characterised as the ‘cold-turkey’ era, as
farmers bore the brunt of the reform process (Morriss et al., 2001). Agricultural
subsidies were removed wholesale in 1985 and government funding for the Agricultural
Training Council was also reduced (Moore, 1990; Morriss et al., 2001). In light of this,6
7

Forestry and Fishing cadet schemes were established during 1991.
The training of young people at Flock House stopped in 1987 (Robertson, 1990).

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 7Federated Farmers, after much debate, removed its financial support from the Council in
March 1986, believing that it “…could operate agricultural training more efficiently
than the current system” (“The mood of farming: state of shock!” 1986: 5). The
Agricultural Training Council was disbanded later that year (Moore, 1990).
As the ‘user pays’ mantra took hold, “….MAF services became less of a responsibility
for Government to provide, and more of a responsibility for the industry to buy”
(Riddell, 1992: 7). At the same time, vocational training in general came to be seen as
much more an education matter than a labour market issue (Murray, 2001). In
agricultural training, this meant that the responsibility for both the farm training
institutes and the primary industry cadet scheme was transferred to the Ministry of
Education. There was a rapid expansion of polytechnic-based agricultural training,
despite the relative cost-effectiveness of the industry-based schemes8 (Riddell, 1992).
The years 1989 to 1999 are described as the ‘free market’ era, in light of the increasingrole for market forces in determining education and training outcomes (Morriss et al.,2001). The competitive model encouraged a proliferation of agricultural courses, whichwere offered at many dispersed sites, with little co-ordination between parent
polytechnics (Riddell, 1992). The expansion was short-lived, however, as industry
reverses in the mid 1990s saw training reduced and in some cases no longer offered atall.9 Private training establishments (PTEs), often staffed by former polytechnic tutors,
moved to take up the slack (Morriss et al., 2001).
Industry-based training continued under the primary industry cadet scheme. Despite thegovernment’s preference for polytechnic-based training, support remained relatively
stable for the cadet scheme, which attracted around 1,900 to 2,500 participants eachyear from 1983 to 1992 (Riddell, 1992: 17). The scheme, along with other industry
training, came under the umbrella of the Education and Training Support Agency(ETSA). Riddell (1992) argued that the equity in funding and policy offered as therationale for the transfer to ETSA had not occurred, and that the future of the primaryindustry cadet scheme was dependent on increased industry funding.
Increasing the contribution industry made to training was one of the main drivers of the
National government’s Industry Training Strategy, enacted in part via the Industry
Training Act 1992. The agricultural sector was cautious, however:“An impediment to increased Industry contributions to funding its own
organisations is their suspicion of Government’s longer term intentions.
They fear that any increased funding will be matched by a decline in the
Government share and with no gain in training effectiveness being
achieved.”10 (Riddell, 1992: 2)

8

In 1992, for example, the primary industry cadet scheme received $714 per trainee per year, while the
EFTS funding for a polytechnic student was $9700. In total, the primary industry cadet scheme received
2.7 per cent of the government’s agricultural education for 30 per cent of the total students (Riddell,1992).
9For example, Christchurch Polytechnic ceased to teach agricultural courses in 1999 (Morriss et al.,2001).
10
Fears of withdrawal of government funding proved largely groundless, with 66 per cent of the
AgITO’s 1999 income coming from government grants, and only 20 per cent from industry grants(Agriculture Industry Training Organisation, 2000). The figures were similar for 2000 (Agriculture
Industry Training Organisation, 2001).

- 8 - Nicky Murray
Nevertheless, the industry embraced the new strategy, with the farming and pork
industries forming the Farm Education and Training Association of New Zealand(FETA) in the early 1990s. This organisation was charged with facilitating training forboth new entrants and existing agricultural workers, and evolved into the Agricultural
Industry Training Organisation (AgITO) in 1997 (Morriss et al., 2001; Riddell, 1992).
The horticultural industry also formed the New Zealand Horticulture Industry Training
Organisation (NZHITO) in 1992 (NZHITO, 2002).
The current era, which began with the election of the Labour/Alliance coalition
government in 1999, is characterised by Morriss et al (2001) as the ‘knowledge
economy’ era. The intellectual capital of the country is seen as the driving force behindcompetitiveness and growth. ‘Marketing’ has been replaced by an emphasis on quality
assurance and supply-chain management. Increasingly, large supermarket chains are theexport focus, with requirements for niche products and extensive trace-back systems:“…to meet these requirements the standards of agricultural education, training anddevelopment will inevitably have to rise in the new millennium” (Morriss et al., 2001,
7). Indeed, in 2003 there were nearly 10,000 trainees participating in some form of
agriculture or horticulture education or training (Department of Labour, 2003).

Case study: The Dairy Industry in Canterbury
The primary sector is of vital importance to the Canterbury region, with agricultural
goods contributing over half of the region’s total exports. The trend towards
diversification identified in New Zealand agriculture has also been noted in Canterbury,with increased irrigation allowing more intensive farming, such as horticulture,
viticulture and, in particular, dairying (Canterbury Development Corporation, 2003).
The size of the dairy industry in the region increased approximately ten-fold from 1993
to 2002, as high export prices led many sheep and beef farmers to convert to dairying(Career Services, 2002). The region is notable for above-average herd sizes; 600 cows
compared to the national average of 300 (Department of Labour, 2003).
The field work for this case study was comprised of interviews, which were carried out
in 2002 and 2003, and the monitoring over the same period of various initiatives
focused on labour issues related to dairying. The dairy industry encapsulates many of
the issues that impact on industry training in agriculture as a whole. While conditions
for dairy farm workers have improved “vastly” over the past decade, it remains a mobile
workforce, with shortages of skilled labour (Department of Labour, 2003: 8). The
labour intensive nature of dairying, coupled with increasing farm sizes, has meant thatthe family-based farm is often no longer viable; “…employing staff has become a factof life for dairy farmers” (Verwoerd & Tipples, 2004). Employment relations, within
which training is set, have been somewhat problematic in dairying, and industry training
may have a wider role to play than merely the acquisition of specific farm-related skills.

Recruitment
As training in agriculture has developed from the farm cadet scheme, trainees are notdefined as apprentices as such. Since the inception of Modern Apprenticeships in 1999,
however, a number of industry trainees have moved onto this scheme. The Agricultural
Industry Training Organisation (AgITO) has a pro-active role in recruiting trainees andapprentices: “…our role is to go out on the farms and find people who are already inKnowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 9employment, and encourage them into training” (Interview with AgITO training
advisor). There are also four pre-employment training groups in the region: the National
Trade Academy; the Rangiora Academy, attached to Rangiora High School, Hurunui
Academy attached to Amuri Area School; and a course run by Agriculture New Zealand(AgNZ).11

Organisation of training
AgITO trainees begin with an entry-level Level 2 course, the National Certificate inAgriculture: Introductory Farming Skills. This is a generic farming course, with anemphasis on basic farm skills and safety, and usually takes one year to complete. Someof the Level 2 course may have been delivered by a pre-employment training provider.
Trainees may then move onto the Level 3 and 4 course, where they are able to choose a
specialist farming option. The Level 4 qualification requires around three years of parttime study. It is at this point that some trainees are identified as potential Modern
Apprentices and offered the opportunity to move onto that scheme. The funding tied toModern Apprentices obligates the training co-ordinator to carry out four visits to theapprentice per year. The distances involved and lack of ITO funding, however,precludes such close attention being given to ordinary AgITO trainees:“It’s not too dissimilar to what the AgITO is doing already, we’re
training advisors, we’re out visiting our trainees anyway, and (in theory)
we visit our trainees twice a year. That’s regardless of the apprenticeshipscheme, and so they already were getting that contact with us. But theapprenticeship scheme...puts it into a tighter framework…Physically it
wouldn’t be possible [to have all trainees as Modern Apprentices]because of the extra work required to maintain a Modern Apprentice, likefour visits a year…We’re struggling to, my region we’re struggling to do
one visit, not for the Modern Apprentices, for the people who are nonapprentices. Like I certainly get my Modern Apprenticeship visits done,
but for the non-Modern Apprentices, I’d be struggling to get one visit
done a year, and, as you increase the number of Modern Apprentices, fora training adviser, their work increases…But there is a ceiling though,you couldn’t have all Level 4 [trainees] doing it, unless you put morelabour on the ground, and that’s potentially possible I suppose.”(Interview with regional agriculture ITO official).
The isolation of many trainees is not the only distinctive feature of training in the
agricultural sector. Dairying, in particular, has high rates of both internal migration andstaff turn-over (Tipples, Wilson & Edkins, 2004). This movement traditionally occurs
on ‘Gypsy Day’ (1 June), which marks the beginning of a six-to-eight week period (onfactory-supply farms) when cows are not milked and calving occurs. It is on this day
that farmers, sharemilkers, workers and herds may shift farms (Tipples & Lucock,2004). Clearly, the reality of such a mobile workforce has ramifications for the both the
motivation to train, as the farmer may be unable to capture directly the benefit of the
training investment, and the organisation of the training:

11

AgNZ is a subsidiary of Wrightson (a major agriculture business). It was formed when, after more than
100 years, the farm and horticultural advisory services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries ended.
AgNZ had three strands: marketing and business consulting; on-farm consultancy; and the training group,
which is a NZQA accredited private training provider (AgNZ, 2001).

- 10 - Nicky Murray“Yeah, they do move around a lot…I’ve got around 25 to 30 per cent of
my trainees moved this quarter. Yes, so I terminate (nasty term) themwhen they leave my area…There is a large movement of trainees between
regions, and probably 30 per cent is getting on the high side. I haveheard farmers say that it’s healthy that there is some movement, they all
agree they don’t want too much movement, but some movement is good,
because some of that is employees going on to better things, going up theladder and becoming more skilled, and they want to take on herd
manager’s positions so they move to do that because they can’t do it withthe existing farm they’re on. Also a couple or two years on a farm, it’s
good to get a new employer and get fresh ideas and a different way of
doing things.” (Interview with regional agriculture ITO official)

Assessment
Because of the particular nature of the agriculture industry, the main emphasis ofassessment is on-farm assessment. Formalising the assessment of training may prove achallenge for some farmers, requiring good support systems. For example, Verwoerd
and Tipples’ (2004) study of the staff management practices of 20 Canterbury dairy
farmers found that, while the farmers generally enjoyed training, “…the pressure ofwork tended to limit that training to practical, here-and-now tasks with little opportunity
for theoretical or wider extension” (Verwoerd & Tipples, 2004, 34). In recognition of
the need for support, when they take on an AgITO trainee or apprentice, farmers are
signed up as registered assessors. While this system is generally regarded as working
well, moderation is an issue because farmers are in the main working on their own, andare often geographically isolated. In the Canterbury region, AgITO has recognised the
difficulties that may arise with assessment by appointing a ‘roving’ moderator, who willvisit each contracted farm and advise the farmer on assessment.
Off-farm assessment is carried out at classes held approximately once a fortnight invarying locations. These classes provide around 72 hours of tuition a year. In the
Canterbury region, which has a predominance of dairy farms, the classes are held
between 9.30am and 2.30pm, to cause the least interference to the farming day. AgITO
contracts training providers, one of which is Agribusiness Training, to run the courses.
This company was formed as the region’s polytechnics closed down their agricultural
departments. As well as providing technical tuition and assessment opportunities, theclasses also provide social contact for trainees and another contact point for the AgITO
training advisor.

Industry issues
Recruitment and Retention of Skilled Workers
An over-riding issue for the agriculture industry currently is the recruitment andretention of skilled workers. This is hardly a new phenomenon, yet the current
buoyancy of the sector and the increasing demand for higher skilled workers havebrought the issue to prominence. The changing nature of the industry has also
contributed to the problem of attracting skilled workers. The trend away from family orowner-operated farms to larger, corporate-style businesses has meant that for many
people the dream of eventual farm-ownership is no longer attainable. Thus, a recognised

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 11career path becomes crucial to providing motivation for those entering the industry(“Agriculture 'unattractive to youth',” 1998). This career progression may be from farmworker to herd manager to farm manager or sharemilker.12 Sharemilking may be a step
towards farm ownership or a career in itself. As land prices rise, however, and farmers’
financial commitment to the dairy companies increase, there is a trend towards
employing salaried farm managers, rather than sharemilkers.
An ‘environmental scan’, conducted as part of a pan-industry Human Capability
Strategy (launched in February 2003), provided a background of the labour and skill
issues. Several challenges were identified: the largely urban nature of New Zealand,
which divorces many people from any ‘agricultural’ experience; the perception of thesector as low-skilled; many small-scale, isolated employers; perceptions of low pay andpoor conditions; intensification of farming practices, requiring improved people
management skills; a poor health and safety record; seasonal work; and poor promotionof farming as a career option (Department of Labour, 2003).
Many of these factors are in evidence in the Canterbury dairy industry, which formed
the basis for much of my field work. One interview I conducted with a dairy farmer
encapsulated the paradoxes surrounding training. The farm, a large dairy conversion
milking approximately 670 cows for factory supply, employed four full-time staff who
worked on a rotating roster, with three staff on at any one time. While the farmer was
happy to have pre-employment trainees from the National Trade Academy for one to
two-week work experience placements, the farm had not had an AgITO trainee orapprentice in the previous four or five years. The farmer explained that there was aconcern that the trainees would leave the farm or the industry after the (expensive)
training was completed and that some aspects of the AgITO support and training were
not to her liking. Another major contributor to the reluctance to take on a trainee was
the time required to train; as the farm expanded there simply was not enough time totrain a less skilled employee. The farmer also felt that ‘soft’ skills, such as attitude,organisational skills and people management skills (clearly perceived by her as notdelivered by formal training), were more important than technical skills, especiallygiven the close nature of farm working relationships.
The farm had a high level of staff-turnover (not uncommon, as discussed above),
however, and the farmer reported that it was extremely difficult to source staff with therequired experience and skills. One response to these difficulties was to use a farm
employment agency, Marvin Farm Services,13 which organises overseas farm labour for
short or long-term placements. At the time of the interview, all four of the farm’s staff
had come from overseas. This farmer was impressed with the training these employees
had received overseas, especially from Britain and Ireland, arguing that they had abetter grasp of general farming techniques than their New Zealand counterparts.
One point on which the farmer was most emphatic was the need for a change of attitude,especially on the part of secondary schools. It was felt that farming needed to bepromoted as a skilled occupation, with a formal career path available. Clearly, thisfarmer felt that the low status accorded to farming, discussed in greater detail below,
was a major contributor to recruitment and retention problems. Yet, paradoxically, thedesire to train, recognition of the benefits of training, and a call for a formal career

12

Sharemilkers operate a farm on behalf of the farm owner for an agreed share of the farm profits. In
2000/2001 37.3 per cent of New Zealand dairy farms were sharemilked (Verwoerd & Tipples, 2004).
13
www.marvinfarms.co.nz

- 12 - Nicky Murray
progression (presumably reliant on formal qualifications) did not translate toparticipation in AgITO training by the farm.

Responses to Recruitment and Retention Issues
There has been a wide range of responses to labour and skill issues in the agriculture
sector. Several government departments are involved in a number of initiatives at bothnational and regional levels “…around issues concerning matching labour supply withdemand, skill development of employees and growers, and improving employment
practices and conditions” (Department of Labour, 2003: 2). These include thedevelopment of the human capability strategy mentioned above; initiatives focusing on
seasonal workers;14 and health and safety programmes.
There are also industry-level initiatives. For example, the dairy industry ‘industry good’organisation, Dairy InSight,15 committed around $2 million of its approximately $36
million 2003/2004 budget to education and training. Of this, over $1 million was used,in collaboration between Dexcel16 and the AgITO, to “…improve the knowledge andskills of people from the dairy industry who enter AgITO training
programmes…leverag[ing] government funds using dairy industry investment” (Dairy
InSight, 2004b). Similar investment in 2002 meant that over 3000 dairy farm employees(17 per cent of those available) were trained during the year (Dexcel, 2003: 11).
Another nearly $900,000 was granted to Dexcel to:“…continue to strengthen the education framework within and available
to dairying to meet changing industry and farm business needs and toassist in raising the perception of dairying as the career choice ofintelligent people.” (Dairy InSight, 2004b: 1, emphasis added)
Dairy InSight also funded a Lincoln University report that aimed “…to evaluate thefuture employment situation of the New Zealand dairy farming industry” (Tipples et al.,
2004: 1). This report provided a statistical profile of the industry and inter-census
changes to that profile. While acknowledging the initiatives outlined above, the reportfound that:“The dairy industry’s image continues to be unattractive to potential
entrants and is resulting in too few people entering the industry. The lowlevels of qualification of the existing labour force and the problems ofretaining the 20-29 age group is depriving the industry of the skill it
requires.” (Tipples et al., 2004: 95)
14

It is important to distinguish between the seasonal nature of, for example, dairy farming, where there
tends to be an annual movement of workers, and the seasonal needs of growers, where a large number ofworkers are required for a short time span.
15
Dairy InSight is a funding organisation only; services are provided by organisations such as Dexcel.
Dairy InSight is funded by a levy of 3.4 cents per kilogram of milksolids on all New Zealand dairy
farmers and sharemilkers (Dairy InSight, 2004a). According to the dairy farmer respondent, thistranslated to an average yearly payment of around $2700 per farm, but would be nearer $7000 on her
farm.
16
Dexcel is the research and extension arm of New Zealand's dairy industry, incorporating the former
Dairying Research Corporation and the Consulting Officer Service of Livestock Improvement. Initially
set up by the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB), Dexcel is now 100 per cent owned and funded by dairy
farmers (Dexcel, 2004).

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 13There is an increased level of awareness of the need to rectify such image issues and toinvest in training at the regional level. For example, in 2000 a group of dairy farmers inNorth Canterbury banded together to form the Amuri Dairy Employers Group, in
response to difficulties in attracting and retaining staff (Edkins, 2002). While suchproblems were endemic to dairying in Canterbury as a whole, they were particularly
severe in the Amuri area, for three reasons. First, dairying was comparatively new to thearea, meaning that the Amuri was not well-known for dairy employment. Second, manyof the farmers were relatively inexperienced, resulting in some cases in unhappy staff,
poor employment relations and high staff turnover. Third, the area is quite isolated,presenting social problems for staff, many of whom are young, single males. Thus,“…the entire region developed a bad reputation as somewhere to live and work”(Edkins, 2002: 225). The response to these issues from the employers’ group was todevelop a code of practice, covering such things as hours of work, employment
conditions and training. The group also aims to promote the dairy industry as a positive
career choice (Mathais, 2002: 16).
Status of agriculture
The low status of agricultural work was of great concern:“Agriculture is not, probably never has been, a favourite occupation/
profession for capable young people. The unfavourable perceptions ofagriculture were made worse by dramatic, often disastrous, events in New
Zealand agriculture in the 1980s.” (Holmes; cited in “Code key tobuilding skilled labour force”, 2002)
Many of the perceptions plaguing the trades as a whole have also been cited as reasonsfor difficulties with recruitment and retention in agriculture: low pay, poor working
conditions and a predominance of ‘dirty’ or manual tasks. Over-riding thesecommonalities, however, was a feeling that agriculture, in particular, was the epitome ofan unfashionable, ‘un-sexy’ industry. Contributing to this is the broader repudiation of
the importance of agriculture to New Zealand. Baragwanath (2003) described this as“… the (agric)cultural cringe – embarrassment at New Zealand’s ‘unsophisticated’
pastoral heritage” (Baragwanath, 2003: 3). Thus, despite the fact that the primary sector
is the single largest contributor to New Zealand’s export earnings, and the fact that
productivity levels in the sector are amongst the best in the world, the government’s
attempt to insert New Zealand into the global ‘knowledge economy’ via biotechnology,
information technology and the ‘creative’ industries virtually ignores New Zealand’s
traditional area of expertise. It is little wonder that this message filters down to many
school-leavers to brand agriculture as a ‘no-go zone’.

Conclusion
As the historical sections of this article illustrated, the nature of industrial relations
within the agriculture sector, together with a deep suspicion on the part of many farmers
about the ‘theoretical’ (as opposed to the practical or hands-on) and the fact that many
farms are small or family-based businesses, have been barriers to formal training. But asfarming was exposed to the rigours of international competition without the safety net
of guaranteed markets, three factors exacerbated over time both the ability of farmers tooffer training and lessened the likelihood of people wishing to take part in that training.

- 14 - Nicky MurrayFirst, the removal of subsidies in the mid-1980s severely impacted on agriculture. Many
farmers were forced off the land, or into survival mode; training was clearly not apriority in that environment. Secondly, in the same neo-liberal vein, training itself was
exposed to market forces during the 1990s. Finally, although agriculture may havesurvived the harsh medicine meted out in the 1980s and is now relatively thriving, the‘knowledge society’, may only have limited tolerance for a (supposedly) old-fashioned,
commodity-based industry.
Nevertheless, there is a clear enthusiasm for training on many farms and a growing
recognition within the industry that good training practices are an important part of thesolutions to many of the challenges facing farming. The immediate benefits of training,a better skilled workforce and improved productivity, are obvious, but training may also
help with worker retention, play a role in developing surer career paths in the industry,ease the adoption of new technology and assist in raising the image of the industry.
Formal training may also encourage a more diverse workforce; not coming themselvesfrom a farming background is less of a barrier if recruits know they will be well-trained
and supported. In the long term, an employer who has received formal training is likely
to feel obliged to ensure his or her workers are also trained; therefore as formal training
becomes more the norm in agriculture, it may become a self-perpetuating ethos.

References
AgNZ. (2001), Agriculture New Zealand Ltd [Website]. Wrightson. Retrieved 3 March, 2004,
from the World Wide Web: www.wrightson.co.nz/agnz/index.asp
Agriculture Industry Training Organisation. (2000), Agriculture Industry Training Organisation
Annual Report 1999. Wellington, AgricultureITO.
Agriculture Industry Training Organisation. (2001), Agriculture Industry Training Organisation
Annual Report 2000. Wellington, AgricultureITO.
Agriculture 'unattractive to youth'. (1998, October), Dairy Exporter, 16.
Angove, N. (1994), The New Zealand Farm Workers Association: Its rise and fall 1974-1987.
In Walsh, P. (ed.), Trade Unions, Work and Society, Palmerston North, The Dunmore Press, pp.
155-176.
Baragwanath, L. (2003), Escaping the groove of globalisation: Disentangling description,
discourse and action. Paper presented at the December 2003 Sociological Association of
Aotearoa Conference: “Knowledge, Capitalism, Critique” (Quality-assured Stream), Auckland
University of Technology.
Brooking, T. (1996), Economic transformation. In Rice, G.W. (ed.), The Oxford History of New
Zealand, Auckland, Oxford University Press (2nd ed.), pp. 230-253.
Canterbury Development Corporation. (2003), Christchurch and Canterbury: Pure business.
Christchurch, CDC.
Career Services. (2002), Agriculture in the Canterbury region [Website]. Kiwi Careers.
Retrieved 11 March, 2004, from the World Wide Web: www.careers.co.nz/industry
Code key to building skilled labour force. (2002, July), Dairy Exporter, 104-105.

Knowledge and skill ‘down on the farm - 15Dairy InSight. (2004a), About us [Website]. Dairy InSight. Retrieved 8 March, 2004, from theWorld Wide Web: www.dairyinsight.co.nz/main.cfm
Dairy InSight. (2004b), Dairy InSight funding portfolio 2003/2004 [Website]. Dairy InSight.
Retrieved 8 March, 2004, from the World Wide Web: www.dairyinsight.co.nz/main.cfm
Department of Labour. (2003), Industry profile - agriculture and horticulture. Wellington,
Department of Labour.
Dexcel. (2003), Annual Report. Hamilton, Dexcel.
Dexcel. (2004), About us [Website]. Dexcel. Retrieved 8 March, 2004, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.dexcel.co.nz/about_dexcel
Dunstall, G. (1996), The social pattern. In Rice, G.W. (ed.), The Oxford History of New
Zealand, Auckland, Oxford University Press (2nd ed.), pp. 451-481.
Edkins, R. (2002, 21-22 November), Dairying and employment in the Amuri: 1983-2002. Paper
presented at the Labour, Employment and Work in New Zealand, Victoria University,
Wellington.
Hawke, G. (1996), Economic trends and economic policy, 1938-1992. In Rice, G. W. (ed.), The
Oxford History of New Zealand, Auckland, Oxford University Press (2nd ed.), pp. 412-450.
Jesson, B. (1987), Behind the mirror glass. Auckland, Penguin Books Ltd.
Martin, J. E. (1990), The forgotten worker: The rural wage earner in nineteenth-century New
Zealand, Wellington, Allen and Unwin/Trade Union History Project.
Mathais, R. (2002), Employers' group works for staff. Dexcelink.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2004), New Zealand's agriculture and forestry sectors.
MAF.
Retrieved
11
November,
2005,
from
the
World
Wide
Web:
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-and-forecasts/sonzaf/2004/2004-sonzaf04.htm
Moore, K. (1990), Learning on the farm: the educational background and needs of New
Zealand farmers. Wellington, New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Morriss, S., Tipples, R., Townshend, W., MacKay, B. & Eastwood, C. (2001), Skill and labour
requirement in the primary sector (Report). Wellington, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Murray, N. (2001), A history of apprenticeship in New Zealand. Unpublished Master of Social
Science Thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln.
Murray, N. (2005), Who gets their hands ‘dirty’ in the Knowledge Society? Training for theskilled trades in New Zealand. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln.
New Zealand Horticulture Industry Training Organisation (NZHITO). (2002), About us[Website]. NZHITO. Retrieved 31 July, 2002, from the World Wide Web:www.hortito.org.nz/about_us/default.shtml
Riddell, R. (1992), Towards an agricultural training strategy for the 1990s, MAF Policy PublicInformation Paper 2, Wellington, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Robertson, L. (1990, July), History of NZ agricultural education. Dairy Exporter, 84-85.

- 16 - Nicky Murray
Statistics New Zealand. (2005), Labour market statistics 2004: People employed by occupationand sex, 1992-2004, Wellington, Statistics New Zealand.
Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre. (2004), History of Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre[Website]. Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre. Retrieved 5 March, 2004, from the World
Wide Web: www.taratahi-ag.ac.nz/history
The mood of farming: state of shock! (1986, 19 March), Straight Furrow, 5.
Tipples, R. & Lucock, D. (2004), Migrations and dairy farming. Primary Industry Management,
7(1): 33-35.
Tipples, R., Wilson, J. & Edkins, R. (2004), Future dairy farm employment (A report preparedfor Dairy InSight as Project 10015/2003). Lincoln, Lincoln University.
Verwoerd, N. & Tipples, R. (2004), Dairy farmers as employers in Canterbury, FHMG
Research Report 01/2004, Lincoln, Lincoln University.

Improving Employment Relationships - 17 -Improving Employment Relationships: findings from learning interventions infarm employment
Ruth Nettle∗, Mark Paine∗ & John Petheram∗
Abstract
This article reports on research investigating the extent to which “learninginterventions” can improve farm employment relationships. A learning intervention isa designed social process to support a relatively permanent change in behaviour, withthe emphasis being on change rather than acquiring new skills alone. Industry,
government or small business agencies often invest in interventions to minimise
employment turnover and improve employment relations. This investment often
involves employer training in HRM procedures, employee skills training, or anindustrial relations focus involving information and advocacy. In this article, suchinterventions in the farm sector are seen to fall short in addressing and supporting thesignificant cultural change required on the part of farm employment participants for
effective employment relationships (eg. embedded attitudes and customs about farmwork and employment conditions that work against effective working relationships).
This signals the need for different approaches to support change in farm employment.
The article outlines the design, implementation and results from two case studies oflearning interventions to support dairy farm employment in Victoria, Australia. The
first case involved a group of farm employers; the second case involved three groupsof farm employers and their employees. Both cases involved participants working on
improving farm employment outcomes over a period of 9-15 months. Findings fromthe case studies suggest that learning interventions foster critical reflection on
employment expectations, and highlight how current behaviour in employment
situations impacts employment outcomes. Further, learning interventions support
different action in employment (changed behaviour). These findings support earlier
research that identified the important role attitudes and values played in hindering
improved employment. Learning interventions therefore represent a breakthrough forcatalysing employment change. However, they also require appropriate facilitation as
well as ongoing support to ensure the change is embedded in workplace practice.
There are also limits to the extent to which learning interventions can effectively
support improvement in employment and these are discussed.

∗

Dr Ruth Nettle is a Research Fellow in Innovation and Change Management, Faculty of Land andFood Resources, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
∗
Dr Mark Paine is a Principal Research Fellow in Innovation and Change Management, Faculty ofLand and Food Resources, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Austalia.
∗
Dr John Petheram is a Senior Lecturer (School of Resource Management), Faculty of Land and Food
Resources, University of Melbourne, Creswick, Australia.
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided for this research by Dairy Australia(formerly known as the Dairy Research and Development Corporation) through their researchscholarship program (Case study 1) and Industrial Relations Victoria “Partners at work” program thatprovided funding for the employer-employee groups in Case study 2.

- 18 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram

Introduction
A previous article (Nettle et al, 2005) has reported on research to understand change
processes in farm employment relationships, with a focus on the Australian Dairy
Industry. This understanding was encapsulated in a conceptual model that linked fourmain process categories: “Core principles guiding employment”, “Mediatingprocesses” in employment relationships, “Change Processes”, and “Relationshipoutcomes” (Refer Figure 3.). The research addressed a gap in understanding of theemployment relationship and the changes that influence the relationship within a rural
setting. However, for employers, employees and third parties (i.e. industry groups,
advisers, government agencies), improving employment relationships is a key issue.
Little previous research has addressed the nature of interventions and support required
to improve employment relationships. This issue is of particular importance in thedairy industry in which turnover and attractiveness of the industry are seen as
explanatory factors in labour shortages (ACIRRT, 2004b; Bodi et al, 1999) and areareas in which effective employment relationships play a central role. In general, thefocus of the Australian dairy industry in improving human resources and employment
has been toward increasing farm labour supply and skills or improving the ability of
employers in business and people “management” through training (Murray Dairy,
1999; Bodi and Maggs, 2001). There have also been efforts to improve the image ofdairying as a career of choice, and to attract young people to the industry via
apprenticeship schemes. There has been little evaluation of the impact or role of suchapproaches on improving employment issues for the industry, and a recent industry
strategy has suggested major investment in interventions to improve employment
issues (Dairy Australia, 2005; ACIRRT, 2004a). However Nettle et al, (2005) haveargued that it is a lack of an employment relationship perspective in employment
interventions that has hindered their impact.
This article reports on empirical research investigating the extent to which “learninginterventions” can improve farm employment relationships. A learning intervention isa designed social process to support a relatively permanent change in behaviour, withthe emphasis being on change rather than acquiring new skills alone. Focusing on theAustralian Dairy industry, the article begins with a review of intervention approaches
to improve employment and introduces learning theories as a foundation for the designof interventions. The remaining discussion focuses on empirical research involving ananalysis of two learning interventions with employers and employees and includes theresearch methodology, the results and their implications. In particular, the research isused to develop a framework for successful learning interventions that support
improvement in employment relationships.
Intervention in improving employment
Intervention, according to economists, is normally considered necessary when there is“market failure” (i.e., when the operation of normative processes of supply anddemand is either erratic or lags, or causes imbalance, or the market is operating
imperfectly). In these cases, intervention often takes the form of regulation or fiscal
policy. In line with such economic approaches, intervention in employment generally
serves four purposes; (1) to improve the total supply of people to businesses (in thiscase farm businesses); (2) to improve the demand for people (particularly youth andthe long term unemployed) by businesses; (3) to improve the skill of people entering

18

Improving Employment Relationships - 19 and in employment; and (4) to help employees and employers find each other in adiverse, difficult and changing market environment (DETYA, 2001).
It is the nature of these interventions that is important in understanding to what extent
these purposes are being met. For instance successful training schemes to enhance theskills of employees for an industry are dependent on attraction strategies formaintaining or improving the supply of people to an industry. The contribution of
employer training schemes is dependent on how the skills and knowledge is appliedand also the employee’s ability to participate in employment relationships. The
success of job matching interventions is dependent on the longevity of the match,which is most often not formally supported.
In a study investigating the role of employer “best-employment practice” groups toimprove labour attraction and retention (Edkins, 2004) the development of a code ofpractice for employers in employment was found to explain only part of the change in
employer practices.
The assessment/auditing process, the employee training
standards, the collective discussion and action of participants were seen as criticalcomponents for change. This suggests an equal, if not greater, importance on thechange process involved with interventions as the tools or content of the intervention.
Further, three reasons have been proposed for alternative approaches to interventions
for improving employment relationships (Nettle, et al 2005). Firstly, employment
relationships have different outcomes other than retention and turnover and achieving
outcomes of balance, resilience or synergy require mutual action on the part of
employers and employees (see Nettle, et al 2005 for explanation). Secondly,
employment relationships require a “working through” of issues and actions rather
than an adherence to standard human resource management practices alone. Thirdly,
it is the core principles of employment (or “guiding rules” of employment) that guidean employer’s willingness and capability to work on the employment relationship andthis affects how human resource procedures are used (limit or support theeffectiveness of HR tools). These guiding rules are based in beliefs, attitudes andvalues and are difficult to change, but can directly impact employment outcomes.
The preceding brief review of intervention approaches would indicate little attention
on change processes for improving employment. The next section reviews thecontribution that learning approaches could make to improving interventions in
employment. Learning can be viewed as a fundamental process for managing change(Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992) and in this way is seen to offer insight into improving
interventions.
Social theoretical foundations for learning interventions
Habermas (1984) argues that all human activity can be differentiated into work
(purposive rational action) and communicative action (social and cultural life
governed by socially constructed norms). In his theory of communicative action
Habermas advocates that communicative practices need to be cognisant of not only
the external or empirical world, but also the social world of norms and values and thesubjective world of personal feelings, desires and intentions. The primary goal ofcommunicative action is not the achievement of efficiency and successful outcomes,
but reaching a mutual understanding in a shared situation (eg. employment).
Alvesson and Wilmot (1992) argue that it is too simplistic to suggest that conflicting

- 20 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
matters can be brought into the open and resolved through dialogue. They counterthat it is language that produces and reproduces the world-taken-for granted, thereby
giving priority to certain (unrecognised) interests. This presents a dilemma for
employment relationships and change in employment – given the centrality of
dialogue in relationships and the need for equal participation often thwarted by issuesof hegemony.
Yet, social interaction leading to action and change and the importance of discourse
for individual and collective learning provides a useful framework for intervention in
the farm employment arena. Röling and Wagemakers (1998:12) suggest thattransformation in agriculture requires a fundamental change in learning processes (incontrast with the processes of adoption of add-on innovations or practices). Suchlearning, they suggest, can be facilitated (fostering voluntary change in behaviour
through communication) and can be seen as a mechanism for change – at theindividual level (eg. learning by employee and employer), at the group level (eg.
employers and employees) and at the level of industry (eg. farmers, employees andinterveners).
Individual learning
Learning research has typically focused on the cognitive processes that individuals
use to acquire and manipulate information. Individual learning is characterised as agrasping of information and the transformation of this information by experimentation
or reflection. Kolb (1984) proposed a typology for categorising learners, based on the
choices that they made about their preferences for acquiring and using information.
Experiential learning, however, tends to treat knowledge like a commodity, and theindividual is depicted in static terms. Therefore, for individual employers andemployees, learning about employment and their actions within the employment
realm may be facilitated through intervention. However, it can be seen that unless
this is placed within the context of their employment relationship and involves theperspective of others in the relationship, limited learning and change may result.
Currently, the “learning” emphasis by the dairy industry appears to have been on“packaging” HRM practices from the business world into employer training
programs. From the learning and intervention literature, it would appear that thisapproach does not help explain how those skills are put into action on farms. It is at
the level of the relationship (interface of employee and employer) that skills areenacted, so to be effective research and intervention would appear to need to operate
beyond the individual.
Group learning
Situated learning theory (SLT) offers an alternative approach to the study ofindividual learning (Lave and Wenger, 1990). Lave and Wenger argue that learningas it normally occurs is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it issituated. Social interaction is a critical component of situated learning; learners
become involved in a "community of practice" which embodies certain beliefs andbehaviours to be acquired. According to SLT the activity (not the individual) is theunit of analysis. This constructivist1 theory stresses the collaborative efforts of1

Constructionism is a social theoretical position that suggests reality is created in the discourse of, andnegotiations among, people as social actors (Crotty, 1998; Charmaz, 2000)

20

Improving Employment Relationships - 21 groups of learners, as sources of learning. In recent years, learning within groups aswell as learning by groups, is stressed (Argyris, 1990, Boonstra and Vink, 1996).
The significance of social learning fosters the conceptualisation of groups of learners
as "critical learning systems".
This literature hints at the importance of group-based learning interventions. This
would suggest that groups of employers and employees working in the context of theiremployment relationships might collaboratively help each other’s practice. However,in line with the arguments of critical thinkers such as Alvesson and Wilmot (1992),
such group learning would require a critical review of tightly held beliefs and values
that may limit learning or further reinforce negative behaviours or outcomes in theemployment context (eg. Challenge to the guiding ruels of employment that may behindering employment change). Boonstra and Vink (1996) concur, suggesting thatthe study of innovation often neglects the development of learning capacities. They
argue that learning capacities are needed for successful innovation and, while
participatory development approaches give way to learning, they argue that this often
allows participants to fall back to conventional and fragmented solutions in theirthoughts and deeds – when innovation and completely new ideas are needed. It could
be suggested that this is the very issue at the heart of employment change.
Social learning – learning as an industry
Pretty (1998) suggests that effective policy should seek to bring together a range ofactors and institutions for creative interaction and joint learning, and Woodhill andRoling (1998: 47) call for "…more creative, forward thinking and socially engaging
processes of change (in environmental management)". They refer to the process ofsocial change, cultural transformation and institutional development necessary (toachieve the integrating of creative capacities of people) as "social learning". They
call for new platforms and processes for facilitating social learning because it allows
for change to emerge as actors "change their minds" through interaction and dialogue
with others. Social learning pays particular attention to how learning processes can befacilitated and enhanced through appropriate institutional and policy contexts (op cit:
53-54). Groups of practitioners are particularly important, for it is only within groups
that social interaction and conversation can take place.
Employment relationships at the farm level occur in a continuum of change anduncertainty. The perspective provided by social learning is that it is the social groupthat “learns” their way out of problematic situations (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998).
In the employment change arena, third parties (advisers, industries, governments) areseen as necessary participants in the change process. This suggests that for issues of
employment relationships, although there are economic imperatives influencing
labour markets and employment decisions, there are still processes of agency of social
actors that mean learning can occur for improvement. Learning approaches would
appear to offer much promise for change in employment issues, but how they might
be used and supported is a new field, that potentially holds the key for broadening theboundaries of intervention in the employment domain.
This literature hints at the possibilities for improvement through the interaction
between people in the organisations that intervene in employment and the farm
employers and employees learning together to improve employment. Such “learninginterventions” are designed to support a relatively permanent change in behaviour

- 22 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
amongst a social group. However the extent to which such interventions offer abreakthrough in improving employment is not well understood and this presents a
serious gap in knowledge.
The remainder of the article reports on research into two different forms of learninginterventions and their contribution to improvement in employment relationships.
Research method and data analysis
The need to evaluate the role of learning interventions in supporting improved
employment requires a methodology that permits the study of the learninginterventions in real time and is able to capture change in employment practice,employment relationships and employment attitudes and beliefs.
Qualitative methods offer the best way to research change. Two main approaches
were used in this research: action research and participant observation. Action
research is a methodology in the social sciences whereby action (change) and research(explanation, understanding) are integrated within a planned intervention (Whyte,
1991; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). The parallel effort of action to improve
employment and documented research to understand change was the approach used.
Participant observation is research in which the researcher immerses themselves in asocial setting for an extended period of time, observing behaviour, listening to what issaid in conversation and asking questions. The method is strongly linked to
ethnography (Bryman, 2001). In this research, the researcher observed, documented
and participated in discussions and activities of the group members as they learnt
about and took action in employment.
Two case studies of learning interventions are analysed for this article. The casestudies were located in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, east of the state capital city,
Melbourne. This region contains over 2300 dairy farms employing an estimated 350
employees (not including sharefarmers) (ACIRRT, 2004a). Each case study is
described outlining the background to the particular learning intervention, theactivities involved, the role of the group facilitators and researcher, the changes that
occurred and general findings in relation to the learning interventions contribution toemployment change. These findings were generated from the analysis of the content
and processes involved in group discussions and changes reported on individual
farms. The data from participant observation was text based (researcher notes) and
was analysed by coding of the text into themes derived from the research questions:
1. How did the learning intervention contribute to individual, group and industry
change in employment (The questions are diagrammatically represented in Figure
1)
2. Can learning interventions close the gap between “intention” to improve
employment and “action” (Employment relationship level)
3. What is the role of support services in supporting change from intention to action
amongst employers and employees (Dairy industry level).

22

Improving Employment Relationships - 23 Figure 1: Hierarchy of purposes for group learning interventions (and key researchquestions).

Level 2
The group
benefit –helping in
support ofchange.

Level 1
The individual
benefit Skills, ideas,
focus onimprovement.

•
•
•
•

•

Employer skill
improvement
Ideas on how to
structure employment
Better job
descriptions
Interviewing skills
Does this method
make for “better
employers and “better
relationships”?
What changes occur?

The group support tochange
Does interaction help
improvement and how?
How do group members
use each other to help
their situation?
What action are people
taking inspired by thegroup?
Do group processes
help traverse change in
employment?

Level 3The industry
benefit –addressa strategic issue
for industry:from managing
cows to people?

Strategic
IndustryissuesCan employmentchange be understood
better?
Can change andlearning be fasttracked?
What things can betargeted by industry?

Level 4The
transferabilityof group
process.

Transferability
Is a model of farm
employment
improvementtransferable toothers, or is it thelearning processthat istransferable?

Results
Case 1: Employer learning group
Background and description of the learning intervention
A local rural services manager recruited twelve farm employers (representing 8 farms)
on behalf of the researcher. The farmers were interested in being part of a group toaddress their employment issues. The group provided an environment in which
employers could closely examine their employment issues, reflect on them and enactchange.
A verbal agreement between the group and the researcher on groupfunctioning and activities was established. The farmers wanted to address practicalimprovement of labour issues for their own situations, and to gain ideas from one
another. The participants understood the purpose of the research was to explore theprocesses of improvement and for the researcher to observe, question and documentgroup members discussions, actions in trying to improve, and reflections on results.
Participants received a copy of the research statement and ethics procedures. Details
relating to confidentiality and use of the data were discussed with participants,
including use of pseudonyms to describe participants in any documentation of theresearch. Characteristics of farm employer participants and their farms andemployment situation are described in Table 1 (using pseudonyms).

- 24 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
Table 1: Characteristics of participants involved in the action research group
Membership of the employer action research group
Jason and Rachael milk 350 cows and have two full time employees
Ben and Andrea milk 550 cows and have three full time employees and some casuals
Tom and Maureen milk 500 cows and have two full time employees
Mathew milks 300 cows and has changed from a sharefarming couple to two full time
employees
Andrew milks 950 cows and has just changed from multiple sharefarmers to employees
Don milks 1300 cows on two farms and has nine employees across the farms
Bob milks 620 cows and has three full time employees
Mick and Elaine milk 1100 cows on three farms and have 5 full time employees

Activities of the group
The group met nine times over 16 months from November 1999-March 2001. Groupparticipants planned their focus and activities for employment improvement,
facilitated by the researcher. The group decided to use one of its members going
through employment change as a focus for their efforts. Topics included: Labour
structures, job descriptions, advertising, interviewing, induction, reviews. At times
the group used outside expertise (employment consultants) to help in particular topic
areas. Between the meetings, they enacted particular learning’s or ideas generated
from the group at the previous meeting. At the following meeting they reported backon what had happened and on reflections or generalisations they had made about theiractions. In this way, the learning intervention involved not just “standard” humanresource management techniques but group process activities (i.e. questioning andchallenging each other, learning from members about their employment relationships
and supporting each others ideas and actions for change).
Each group member planned, applied and reflected on aspects of their own
employment situation and reported improvement in employment outcomes (reduced
incidence of turnover, greater understanding of employees needs, greater willingness
to value employment relationships and different outcomes that employment
relationships offer, and, in some instances, changed the employers “guiding rules” of
employment:
Ben: “I wonder if we look at last year – we weren’t prepared to ask them(employees) ‘why are you leaving’ we said: ‘ just go’. Now we aresaying to ourselves well we want you to stay - how can we make you stay
– or how can we offer you to stay…Our perceptions as employers today…all of us has gone around that corner – we were confronted with major
movement (of employees) and even though we probably didn’t want to talkabout it then – we are now seeing we don’t want that to happen this year –so lets try and make it sweet…”

24Improving Employment Relationships - 25 Role of the facilitator/researcher
The researcher encouraged reflection on action and acted as a critical observer.
Despite this 'facilitation role', group participants themselves directed the groupprocess and content of sessions. The researcher encouraged decisions that led toindividual action in employment - rather than group participants just talking about
improvement or problems, without action. Further, the researcher was concurrently
involved in research to understand more about employment relationships in there own
right. Findings from this work were used within the group activities to encourage
reflection on employment relationship processes of relevance to their own
employment issues (see Nettle, et al 2005).
Change in employment
Change in employment practice (action on farm) and in employment culture
questioning and learning (within the group) about employment practice wereobserved. There were three main areas of change:
1.

Change in the level of questioning toward the performance of the employment
relationship:
Ben: “…define for me [what you meant by] more responsibility [for youremployees]. Does it mean [them being able to] make decisions or was it
to increase [their] workload?”
Tom: “…[and] what do you think they thought responsibility was? They
said they wanted more responsibility – do you think they got what theywanted?”Andrew: “ I don’t know – I’ll be interested to sit down and talk with them
about it.”Here, employers indicate their need to understand how their actions are being
interpreted by employees and are being held accountable for how their actions
are being interpreted.

2.

Change in expectations of one another’s performance as employers:
Ben (discussing Mick and Elaine’s choices): “… wouldn’t you be betterat doing that [managing the new employees]?”
Mathew: "…you’ve taken the easy way out by [giving someone else that
responsibility]."
Andrew: “…I think you are at a point where you’ve probably got toplan what you are going to do for next year – because you just can’t
keep on keeping on like you are going.”
Here, employers reveal their thinking through the implications for employers
and employees of different employer responses and encourage one another tochange.

3.

Change in understanding of how to build employment relationships
through communication and “watching” employment relationships

- 26 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
Rachael: “…what we learnt out of going through this (a review of
employment with their employees) was that we have to learn to explain
things clearer…”
Mathew: “…we are very happy with the way things have gone…to try
and make sure that the honeymoon didn't run out too quickly, eventhough in the job description we had said that they were in charge of thecows seven days a week, …we have tried to go out and do…Friday andSaturday morning milking…so I think we've built up a bit of credit in thebank…”
Group members learnt that communication requires more than just talking. They
learnt that taking communication beyond "talk" is about developing acommunicative competence for employment.
Mathew: “…and from watching the employment arrangement it seemed
to be working very well and the jobs seemed to be falling apartseparately - there didn't seem to be any friction…”
Group members focussed on "watching" (observing and reflecting on) each other’s
relationships. They admit that little "watching" of employment relationship “health”
was going on previous to the group formation. In this way the learning intervention
supported a focus on “watching” to assist groups and individuals in understanding
and taking action in their employment relationships.
4. Change to a relationship focus: Through reflection and self-analysis of attitudes
to employment and their performance as employers, shifting attitudes in
employment away from labour as just a “factor of production” were recorded.
This indicates a shift in “guiding rules” of employment (changing the way an
employer thinks and interacts with employees, see Nettle et al, 2005). Suchguiding rules are considered to be hard to change, but have the greatest scope for
impacting positively on relationship outcomes. This represents a significant
breakthrough for employment interventions.
Processes supporting employment change
Specific group processes were found to be operating within the learning intervention
to support change and improvement in employment practice. These were:
1. Mutual identification: group members identified with each others employment
situation. Despite having different employment arrangement and situations,working on employment improvement together and strongly identifying witheach others issues supported the engagement of employers in helping eachother improve.
2. Accelerated learning: The action taken by group members in improving
employment and then having a forum to reflect on those actions (impacts)
meant a quicker response to employment issues for participants.
3. Validation of learning: the group plays a mentoring role, either validating andconfirming conclusions drawn from experience, or suggesting alternative
explanations. The challenge to each other (rather than validation) was
important for confronting strongly held beliefs about employees, for instance,
yet in a supportive environment.

26

Improving Employment Relationships - 27 4. Coping with change: the group developed capacity to identify key points intransition involved in employment relationships and early warning signals for
employment change.
Discussion – Case 1
Employer group learning interventions that place central importance on the learning
process for supporting change appears central to effective intervention in
employment. This is because such approaches support:

Understanding of employment relationships and give meaning to employers
actions in employment - rather than 'going through the motions' of humanresource management procedures.
New action (change) and reflection on outcomes from this action inspires
continued improvement.
Provide synergy between group learning and individual learning: the grouplearns as does the individual in the group in improving employment
performance

However, successful learning interventions require challenging facilitation not justpassive support to a group process, further, this is made difficult by employers often
not able to articulate what improvement they are seeking for employment (where to
start? questions). This is important as a commitment to new action (and to the grouplearning process through time) is important for successful learning interventions. The
learning process is repeatable and further reinforces the importance of supporting
roles in employment relationships. The third party intervention that members had
experienced through the group included advice and training. This intervention wasplaced in the context of the groups’ focus and activities. So the interveners, who
assisted the group on employment topics, supported change, but it was the group
action and reflection that instigated change.
Case 2: Employer-employee learning groups
Background and description of the learning intervention
Three groups, each of 5 to 6 farm employer-employee units met six times between
October 2003 and May 2004. Overall, 32 employers and their employees(representing 15 businesses) were involved. The groups met as part of a regional
employment project2. The project was designed to support dairy employers and theiremployees in their current working relationship and develop their own guidelines for
future working relationships and careers. The project sought to improve dairy farm
employment relationship performance.
The groups were supported by a professional facilitator and an employment
researcher. Group members established a group “contract” at the start that provided
the guidelines for group work. Group members were provided with a workbook thatoffered resource material and action planning guides to support change in
2

The “Innovation in employment” project was initiated by GippsDairy, an Australian dairy industry
regional development program.

- 28 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
employment. The groups began by mapping out the employment process from both
employer and employee perspectives and then choosing elements of the process thatthey wanted to focus on for improvement. Group members were recruited throughadvertising (brochures about the project and press releases), word of mouth andpersonal contact between the local regional industry development body and theirconstituent farmers. Target participants included employers seeking improvement in
employment outcomes and those who were able to have their employee with themthroughout the project.
Participants tended to include those employers that were confident in the strength oftheir current employment relationships to involve their employees and also saw value
for their employee in being involved. The participants understood the purpose of theresearch was to explore the processes of improvement in employment relationships
and for the researcher to observe, question and document group members discussions,actions in trying to improve, and reflections on results. Participants received a copy of
the research statement and ethics procedures. Details relating to confidentiality anduse of the data were discussed with participants, including use of pseudonyms todescribe participants in any documentation of the research. General characteristics ofparticipants involved in the project are described in Table 2.
Table 2: Characteristics of employer and employee participants in the “partnership”
group learning intervention
Characteristics of members of the employer-employee “partnership” groups
Employers:
Years as an employer: 12 years (range 5-22)
Average herd size 450 cows (range: 140-870)
Main selection criteria used in choosing an employee: attitude to work, personality,
willingness to work, skills.
Their employees:
Years in current position: 5.7 (2-15 years)
Main factors looked for in a job: good people to work with, good boss who considers needsof employee, pay above award, pay increases offered through time.

Activities of the group
All group members involved in the partnership groups worked on aspects of theemployment process and covered topics on the employment process including:communication, team environment, farm meetings and performance reviews, job
descriptions, career planning, and OH&S.
Participants developed their own “action plans” for improving performance of current(and future) employment relationships. Throughout the group activities, employers
and employees discussed and documented their own “guide” to how to better meet theneeds of everyone in the employment process. These were collated into “Better
employment - Guidelines for dairy farm employers and employees – from employers
and employees”. Seven important areas of employment were identified:28

Improving Employment Relationships - 29 -

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Pre-employment
Selecting / choosing each other
Working together
Communication
Business approach
Work team environment
Ongoing review and feedback

The groups developed guidelines that encompassed the lessons learnt as they worked
through employment issues as part of the learning group. These guidelines were built
around these seven areas of employment and included things employers andemployees thought should be done, what should be avoided and ideas to try. These
included lessons under the following elements of the employment process.
Role of the facilitators and researcher
Each group of employer-employee units were facilitated by an experienced ruralchange professional, not with specific expertise in human resources. The researcher
attended most meetings. Guidelines and ethics for the groups working together werea major feature of group establishment given the sensitivities of employer-employee
relations. This included an established process for employers and employees to use ifchange in employment occurred whilst being involved in the project. Employer andemployee discussions, actions and reflections were documented and analysed during
the project. This provided insight into processes of improving employment andbarriers to employment improvement.
Change in employment
Changes in employment observed and documented by participants included:
1. Changes to the way prospective employees/employers are found
2. Changes in what people look for in an employee/employer
3. Change in roles on the farm
4. Change in work conditions, pay or employment status
5. Change in employee responsibilities
6. Better job descriptions
7. Improvement in workplace safety management
8. New approaches to day-to-day working relationships
9. Establishment of farm meetings
10. Increased participation of employees in decision making
11. Improved communication
12. Introduction of work contract reviews
13. Introduction of discussions about career progression or promotion.
Overall, the majority of employers were more confident in employing at the end of the
project, had increased satisfaction with working relationships and farm teamperformance despite no overall change in satisfaction amongst employers in theiremployees work performance (O’Sullivan and Nettle, 2005). Further, employees
showed reduced satisfaction levels with their job, their relationship with theiremployer and relationship with others in the farm team. It is hypothesized that
employees participating in the project had quite low awareness of employment

- 30 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
relationship processes. The reduced satisfaction indicates a shift in the way they were
evaluating the relationship and the job, suggesting their appreciation of what is
important to them and being exposed to more tools and employer issues had an impact
on how they assessed employment.
Processes supporting (and hindering) employment change
Despite the employer-employee group learning intervention supporting change andimprovement in employment practice, greater insight came from observing factors
hindering employers and employees from improving employment relationships.
These included:
1. Job factors and relationship factors viewed separately in employment outcomes:
Despite participants in the groups being aware of and comfortable with the“relationship” focus of the employment project, “job-factors” (pay, work hours,
work conditions, type of work) were viewed (or framed) separately from“relationship-factors” (communication, expectations, performance, contracts,
support, personal relating) by employers and employees.
For example, an employee who decided to leave their position through the courseof the group cited work hours, pay and responsibility issues (job factors) as being
part of their decision to leave whilst praising the “good relationship” they had with
their employer (relationship factors). In other cases, employers cited satisfaction
with employees work performance whilst expressing dissatisfaction with thequality of the team work on the farm. Yet “job factors” and “relationship” factors
are equally important for employment outcomes and are interdependent. Framing
employment in this way could be envisaged to impact directly on the ability of a
relationship to adapt through change and time (resilience). Group learning
processes like that used in this project provide an opportunity to explicitly address
job and relationship factor interaction.
2. The gap between intention and action in improving employment: Employment
issues are known to be a concern to many farmers. When asked what they
expected from the group involvement employers mainly wanted to improve theiremployment abilities and have better working relationships. Employees wanted tolearn more about dairying and improving work relationships. Despite this drive,some employers and many employees found it difficult to take action, despite
good intent (action plans). Overall, employers brought more of a sense of
responsibility for an outcome from their group involvement compared with
employees. This gap between intention and action appears to be driven by threefactors:a) Specific and identifiable barriers to taking action. For example: a lack of time
to implement management processes; a reinforced negative attitude toward
employers/employees and employing; powerlessness to improve (family social
structures thwart attempts at change); a lack of desire to appraise selfperformance; and, separating “relationship” and “job-factors” (after point 1
above) when viewing employment success.

30

Improving Employment Relationships - 31 b) Tools and processes readily available but not easily implemented on-farm:
Employment tools such as job descriptions, interview procedures, farmmeeting guides as well as human resource management techniques are
relatively readily available to farm employers and employees. Groupparticipants found it difficult to adapt these resources for their own situationand farm and then use processes as a regular part of day-to-day farming
practice or as a standard part of the farm management and farm system“calendar”. Employers involved with the groups indicated limited use orintended use of consultants or support people in employment related matters.
Further, there was little appreciation of the extent of resources and reference
points (information and tools) available to both employers and employees
regarding employment.
c) Size of workplace: The demands on an employer and employee change withworkplace size. For an employer with numerous employees, demands include
issues to do with employee inter-relationships, job delineation/specialisation,
rostering, work-place hierarchies, and changes to their own job role. In asmaller workplace (eg. single employee) the issues centre around the intensityof one-on-one work and the mix of on-farm roles and jobs. Also, howemployees position themselves and negotiate their role and place differs withworkforce size. Workplace size impacts the assessment of a need to change(eg “why have a meeting when there is only one employee and we talk all the
time?”) and also the perception of the scale of change (eg. “how can I get
systems in place and feel in control when I have 8 employees?”).
3. Capacity of employers and employees to work on “the relationship”: Employment
management is increasingly becoming one of the prime competencies forsustainable dairy farming. Yet without an increased capacity of both employer
and employee to manage through employment these outcomes will not be
attained. For instance, an employer with a good track record of employment and akeen interest in establishing standard and effective employment processes would
still prefer not to employ or be involved with employing. In addition, many
employees had high expectations of change in the workplace during the project –sometimes not appreciating the employer difficulties.
Discussion-Case 2
Employer-employee group learning interventions that place central importance on a
joint learning process for employers and employees has been shown to supportchanged practices in employment but potentially is too threatening a learning
environment for significant change in beliefs and attitudes toward employment. Suchinterventions appear most suited to employers and employees ready to change
employment practices, and for employers and their employees looking for newopportunities for growth and development. However, such interventions do support
the development of a joint appreciation of employment needs and expectations and anawareness of “the other side” for both employers and employees. As such, some joint
interaction (rather than separate learning interventions for employers and employees)
is warranted.
Based on the findings from this case study a framework to assess an employer or
employees “readiness to change” employment action was developed. Such a

- 32 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
framework could help identify those farm employers and employees most likely tobenefit from such interventions.
Readiness to change employment
For employers, an increased readiness to change employment practice includes;
willingness to appraise employment performance; a large current workforce – orexpanding workforce; looking for tools and systems to put in place for their farm;views employment issues as “within their control”; has a desire to seek out or modify
tools available to support their employment practices. A reduced readiness to change
employment practice by employers may be indicated by; a small current workforce;
multiple generations of family involved in employing; suggest that “good personal
relationships with employees” are enough for employment success; have large timeand financial pressures (desperation), and see employment issues as an industry
problem – outside their control.
For employees, an increased readiness to change employment practice includes; awillingness to appraise performance and see their own role in employment outcomes
and have a sense of where they would like to progress in their employment. A
decreased readiness to change employment practice is indicated by a lack ofwillingness to appraise performance as an employee – placing all responsibility on
employer.
Cross-case analysis
Learning interventions such as described through the case studies appear to improve
employment relationships by supporting change in guiding rules of employment,
supporting understanding and use of key mediating practices, providing support tocope with change and providing a forum for exploring desired employment outcomes.
This is demonstrated diagrammatically in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Processes in employment relationships (developed from previous research(see Nettle, et al, 2005) and the role of learning interventions in improvement

32

Improving Employment Relationships - 33 -Learning
group role inchanging
employer
guiding rules

Learning group rolein understanding
and practicing
relationshipmediating practices

1. Core principles
guiding
employment

2. Mediatingprocesses

Learning group rolein awareness of theneed for change andimpact of time andphases in
employment
relationships

3. Time andChange processes

Group role inwatching each others
relationshipoutcomes

4. Relationshipoutcomes

Learning group supports understanding of
critical transition points in employment
relationships, identifies early warning
signals and offers ideas for traversingthem.

- 34 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
In this way, such learning interventions contribute to improvement in employment
relationships at the individual level (for employers and employee’s) and the grouplevel (collective improvement). Further, the learning process itself holds promise forindustry level improvement if such interventions were developed with a critical massof employers and employees.
Although these learning interventions have produced promising results and pointers
for future interventions, some limitations of the process should be noted:
The group process in the project went only part of the way in addressing the gap
between intention and action. It demonstrates why change is so difficult for anindustry to achieve. Although action planning and a suitable learning environment
can help employment participants prioritise what needs to be done and support change
in beliefs and attitudes, implementing action plans requires a different form of
support. The barriers identified through the research need to be understood in thecontext of intervention and support approaches.
Third parties (advisers, industry groups and government) need to develop tools andsupport approaches to reduce the gap between intent and action. These need to be at
two levels: 1. Employer and employee tools (eg. key employment concepts that
adequately describe and explain their farm’s employment relationships and allow
understanding of the form of action they need to take to improve current and future
relationships), and 2. Intervention tools (eg. third party awareness of key concepts andgroup processes that support learning, tools for integrating job and relationshipfactors, mentoring tools for employers and employees to assess their employment
performance). Identified in this research is a framework to assess readiness to change,
this provides one step toward understanding the heterogeneity in employers andemployees for the tailoring of intervention approaches. The research suggests that thelearning interventions provide a link between such farmer tools and intervention tools.
Further it provides a way for supporting organisations, employers and employees toalign their needs and activities for improvement in farm employment.

Conclusion
This article has reported on research into learning interventions as catalysts for
improvement in employment. The research suggests that the needs of farm employers
and employees can be managed as a learning process and that learning interventions
represent a significant step forward for change at individual, group and industry levels
as well as offering a platform for alignment of third party support for improvement.
Although this research was conducted in the context of employment relationships infarm businesses, it is conceivable that such learning interventions are appropriate
across the small business sector.
Further research focusing on interventions in employment is warranted. This researchwould need to examine the role of advisers and other third parties in supporting
employment change and the sustainability of improvement or the long-term impacts
on employment relationships arising from involvement in learning interventions andthird party input.
34

Improving Employment Relationships - 35 -References
ACIRRT (2004a), Dairy employment for the future: The Strategy. Report for United
Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV). Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research andTraining, July, University of Sydney.
ACIRRT (2004b), Dairy employment for the future: A survey of south western Victorian
Dairy Farms. Report for United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV). Australian Centre forIndustrial Relations Research and Training, July, University of Sydney.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), Critical management studies, Sage Publications,London, UK.
Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming organisational defences, Allyn-Bacon, Needham, MA, USA.
Beckhard R. & Pritchard W. (1992). Changing the Essence – The art of creating and leading
fundamental change in organizations. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass
Boonstra, J. J. and Vink, M. J. (1996), 'Technological and organizational innovation: A
dilemma of fundamental change and participation', European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 5, 351-375.
Bodi, A., Maggs, G., and Gray, J. (1999), Managing skills transitions in the Dairy Industry.
Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Melbourne.
Bodi, A. and Maggs, G. (2001), The Dairy Career and Employment Strategy (DCES). Centre
for Workplace Culture Change, RMIT, Melbourne. Project funded by the Dairy Research andDevelopment Corporation (DRDC).
Bryman A (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, New York
Charmaz, K. (2000), Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods, in Handbook of
Qualitative Research (2nd Edition), (ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln), Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Crotty, M. (1998), The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia.
Dairy Australia (2005), Dairy Situation and Outlook - 2005. Dairy Moving Forward,
Melbourne. (www.dairymovingforward.org.au)
DETYA, (2001), Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.
http://www.detya.gov.au (June, 2001).
Edkins, R.J. (2003). Dairying and employment in the Amuri district, North Canterbury 19832002. Masters of Commerce (Agricultural). Lincoln University.
Habermas, J. (1984), The theory of communicative action, Beacon Press, Boston, USA.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000), 'Participatory action research', in Handbook of
Qualitative Research, (ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln) Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA.

- 36 - Ruth Nettle, Mark Paine & John Petheram
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning anddevelopment, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
MurrayDairy (1998), Dairy labour project: Final report, MurrayDairy: A Regional
Development Board of the Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Kyabram, VIC.
Nettle, R., Paine, M. and Petheram, J. (2005). The Employment Relationship – a conceptualmodel developed from farming case studies. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations
30 (2) 19-36.
O’Sullivan, J and Nettle, R (2004) Innovation in Employment: A project to support
innovative working relationships between employers and employees - Final Report.
GippsDairy, A Regional Board of Dairy Australia. Warragul, Victoria.
Pretty, J. (1998), 'Supportive policies and practice for scaling up sustainable agriculture', in
Facilitating sustainable agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in timesof environmental uncertainty, (ed. N. Röling and M.A.E. Wagemakers), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Röling, N. and Wagemakers, M. A. E. (ed.) (1998) Facilitating sustainable agriculture:
participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty,
Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.
Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory action research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
CA, USA.
Woodhill, J. and Roling, N. (1998), 'The second wing of the eagle: the human dimension inlearning our way to more sustainable futures', in Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture.
Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty,,(ed. N. Röling, M.A.E. Wagemakers), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

36

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 37 Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring, and Employment
Relations Change in New Zealand and Australia
Marjorie A. Jerrard *Abstract
Change has been an ongoing process in the meat processing industries of New
Zealand and Australia. It has been driven by a number of external and internal factors
such as market demand, seasonality, and competitiveness which require industry
parties to strategically respond in order to remain viable. Arguably, in both countries,
the meat industry trade unions have faced greater challenges because their situation
was compounded by rounds of legislative change. Consequently, after two decades ofindustry restructuring and employment relations change, the unions can be seen as
survivors in the industry and the employers as the winners.

Introduction
The New Zealand and Australian red meat processing industries have experienced
considerable change during the last two decades. This has been driven by government
policy, employment relations legislation, and industry rationalisation and restructuring
aimed at improving international competitiveness via cost savings. From theperspective of the trade unions in the industry – the NZ Meatworkers’ Union, Meat
Union Aotearoa, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (AMIEU) – a
number of challenges have arisen that have consequently resulted in significant
modifications in their strategy.
This article, while offering an assessment of union strategy in the meat processing
industries over the last two decades, also identifies key strategic responses of the othermain parties in the industry. This is done by providing a brief history and overview of
each country’s meat processing industry, including industry structural and ownershipchanges. Employment relations changes are then considered and an assessment of thestrategic responses of the unions in each country is provided. The purpose is not tosimply offer a similar case comparison of the industry in the two countries but toassess how parties involved in a major international export industry fare in the face ofdomestic and international forces driving changes. However, it is important to notethat these changes do not necessarily occur because of similar circumstances. Thisapproach accords with the comments made by Wailes (1999), who warns that the actof comparison does not guarantee insights into the causes of employment relations
change and that similarity between New Zealand and Australia is not an adequate
starting point to justify such comparative research.
While there are some similarities in terms of industry structure and even employment
relations legislative changes between the two countries that can be noted, there is
probably greater difference between the North and South Islands of New Zealandwhen it comes to meat industry structure and rationalisation. Intra-country differences*

Marjorie A. Jerrard, Department of Management, Monash University.

- 38 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
are predicted, therefore, to be an important factor in explaining the strategies of theparties in the New Zealand industry, particularly the unions.
The development of the modern meat processing industry in New Zealand andAustralia
For the purposes of this article, the generic terms ‘meat processing industry’ and‘meat industry’ will be used interchangeably to refer to both domestic and exportlicensed abattoirs. In New Zealand and Australia, the meat industry is referred to as
the “meat processing industry” (IBISWorld Pty Ltd 2000-2002; IBISWorld Australia2005) which encompasses the domestic-market industry, or the ‘meat processing andexporting industry’, encompassing the export-licensed section of the industry. These
definitions are developed from the red meat industry which covers all work carriedout in an abattoir, from the slaughtering through to the packaging of the meat forexport or domestic consumption, including the manufacture of smallgoods. The meatindustry remains labour intensive and heavily reliant upon worker skills, despite theintroduction of new technologies over the last two decades.
The work itself is heavy and physical. The work atmosphere is dirty, noisy, andsmells, and a range of temperature extremes exists. Accidents in the meat industry arecommon (Worksafe Australia, 1994), making work cover costs high for employers.
The pace of the work is set by the mechanised chain system of disassembly, revolving
around groups or gangs of workers. Each group member has responsibility for a partof the disassembly of the carcass as it moves, suspended, along the conveyor belt
chain. In the boning room, carcasses are placed on an overhead chain conveyor
system, after which they pass through a series of processing operations. Operating in
conjunction with the carcass conveyor are waste conveyors, all of which must be
thoroughly cleaned every day. From the boning room, the meat is packed into
cardboard cartons and transported by conveyor to an in-line weighing and labelling
station. The conveyor system sorts the cartons into chilled and frozen streams andstages them for loading into freezers or carton chillers. Full pallets are conveyed to apallet pick-up station where forklifts deliver the pallets to despatch. Any change intechnology adopted by a competitor will soon flow across the industry, necessitatingchanges in work practices and conditions.
One of the key issues facing the meat industry in both New Zealand and Australia is
the retention of international market share of the export industry through making
productivity gains and cutting costs in export-licensed abattoirs. This is hampered by
the cycles of high throughput and high profits followed by periods of low activity andlow profits, often tied to climate conditions, seasonal changes, and availability oflivestock. As the industry is highly competitive and profit margins are low comparedwith other manufacturing industries, profit is made on volume (IBISWorld Australia,
2005). Profits are made when plant operation is between 70 and 100 per cent capacity(Taylor, 1998) and when labour patterns are made more flexible.
Plant throughput and employee output are key issues for companies in both countries.
It has been estimated that from 1985 to 1997, a 60 per cent improvement has beenachieved in output per employee on beef slaughter boards with comparable increases
in lamb and mutton slaughter (Sinclair, 1997). The improvement is largely due tochanges in technology, slaughter floor design, and workforce reforms. However, inMeat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 39 terms of production cost per unit, the slaughter component remains approximately one
third to one half of the total cost with labour costs even less, at just over four per centof meat export production costs (Hayes, Malcolm, Watson, O’Keefe and Thatcher,
1999; Hall, 2001). Improvements or changes made by a competitor at the international
level drive subsequent changes across the industry as a whole, resulting in a flow-onof changes in technology, plant design, supply chain management, and workforce
management. When competitors are also geographically close, such as New Zealandand Australia in lamb meat production and export, but geographically separated fromtheir buyers, the retention of competitive advantage is crucial and replication is
expected. Despite this, the industries in New Zealand and Australia retain a number ofdifferences in structure and approaches to workforce management that subsequently
shape trade union strategy.
Another important factor in determining productivity, competitiveness, and industry
structure is the pattern of ownership. Findings from international research (McGuckinand Nguyen, 1995; Nguyen and Ollinger, 2002; Celikkol and Stefanou, 2004) haveidentified changes in productivity related to changes in meat industry ownership;
namely, that in large plants ownership changes result in an initial drop in productivity
but in small plants, there is an increase. Further, plants targeted for mergers andacquisitions are highly productive ones. This research also identified a concentrationof meat industry ownership (81 per cent) between three firms in the United States(Celikkol and Stefanou, 2004), a pattern that is replicated in both New Zealand andAustralia and discussed below.

New Zealand meat processing industry: background and current situation
The New Zealand meat export industry traces its origins to the early 1880s (New
Zealand Meat and Related Trades Union, n.d.; NZ Meatworkers’ Information
Booklet, 2002). The industry ownership was formerly dominated by British
companies such as Vestey, Borthwicks, Weddell, and Co-operative Wholesale (Curtis
and Reveley, 2001; New Zealand Meatworker Newsletter, April 2002). These large
companies traditionally concentrated on maximising throughput rather than on
minimising costs. Historically, the seasonal nature of meat processing provided theindustry unions with considerable strength during peak season so that “… the meatindustry was responsible for one in every four strikes in New Zealand” (MIA media
release, 2000, 21 May).
There are over 150 New Zealand meat companies licensed to operate, with mostexporting primarily red meat, with the range of products including mutton, lamb, beef,
veal, venison, and goat meat cuts as well as by-products such as offal and sausage
casings (Trade New Zealand, 2005). Ninety per cent of meat processed in New
Zealand is exported (MIA media release, 21 May 2000) and meat exports account for
about 15 per cent of New Zealand’s export income (Trade New Zealand, 2005). Morethan 90 per cent of New Zealand sheep meat production is exported, accounting for 53
per cent of the world export trade (Trade New Zealand, 2005). New Zealand also
exports 85 per cent of its beef production, and is the fourth largest beef exporter(Trade New Zealand, 2005). The Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) isthe main employer association and represents companies supplying 99 per cent of
New Zealand sheep meat exports and 100 per cent of beef exports (Trade New

- 40 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
Zealand, 2005), including processors, marketers, and exporters (MIA, 2005). It is aneffective lobbying body for its members but has not always achieved the outcomes its
members desired, notably changes to New Zealand economic policy in the 1980s
which saw protection for the industry dropped to force it to be more internationallycompetitive.
The ownership of the processing plants is currently dominated by three large New
Zealand companies – PPCS, AFFCO, Alliance – as a result of restructuring andrationalisation. In 1991, the remaining British company, Vestey, went into
receivership and three large Auckland plants closed (Cooke interview, 2002). This
allowed the livestock producers and the MIA to implement plans for restructuring theNorth Island industry. In the North Island, there are a number of boutique slaughter
plants for lamb and beef and the majority of plants, large and small, are located inrural regions. This is part of a farmer-driven strategy to retain tight managerial andsupplier control over the industry (Cooke interview, 2002) and to make union
organising more geographically difficult.
In the North Island, a series of mergers and acquisitions in the late 1990s saw
Richmond become New Zealand’s largest red meat processor (Richmond, 2003), withan annual turnover of $1.1 billion, and 90 per cent of its total sales coming fromexports (Trade New Zealand, 2003). However, Richmond’s fourteen plants processing
high quality beef, lamb, venison, veal, goats, leather, and associated products havesince been bought out by PPCS. PPCS is a vertically integrated company establishedin 1947 by a group of farmers for direct marketing purposes (PPCS, 2005) and has
over 1200 supplier shareholders (New Zealand Trade, 2003).
Also operating in the North Island is AFFCO, a publicly listed company with about
70 per cent of its shareholders being farmers who supply the company’s lamb andbeef. AFFCO operates eight plants (AFFCO, 2003) and exports 150,000 tonnes ofbeef and lamb products annually (AFFCO, 2003). The Alliance Group began in the
1950s and is also a vertically integrated farmer-owned producer co-operative(Alliance, 2003) with seven processing plants for lamb, sheep, beef, venison, and pork
products. A relative newcomer to the industry is CMP which began operations in
1994 and processes beef and lamb (CMP, 2005). The concentration of the meat
processing industry in the hands of only a few companies is reflective of the pattern ofownership in the American industry (Andreas, 1994).
The red meat plants in the South Island are generally larger than those in the North
Island (Eastlake interview, 2002; Cooke interview, 2002). The consequence of this from the unions’ perspective - is that organising boutique plants with less than twenty
employees is resource intensive and time consuming, especially for the North Island
Meat Union Aotearoa which had suffered considerably under the ECA. During theslaughter season, the red meat industry employs between 20,000 and 23,000 workers(NZ Meatworkers’ Union, 2005; Cooke interview, 2002; Eastlake interview, 2002;
MIA media release, 2000, 21 May).
The New Zealand red meat industry remains the most seasonal of all international
meat industries (Curtis and Reveley, 2001), despite an overall lengthening of theseason driven by the export market (MIA media release, 2000, 21st May). Thereremains peak slaughtering periods when the labour market is subsequently tight andMeat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 41 ‘off seasons’, usually from July to October inclusive. The peak season may varyacross segments of the industry; for example, a small number of plants process calvesduring July-September because this is the peak of the calf season when they are culledfrom the dairy and beef herds. However, “there is no single factor more important to
the processor than throughput” (NZFCA, 1980: 28 cited in Curtis and Reveley, 2001:143) and this ultimately determines the union and employer strategy in the meatindustry at any given time because any interruption to throughput because ofindustrial action is “problematical” (Curtis and Reveley, 2001: 143). Seasonality
specifically grants employers a position of strength during unpredicted season downtime due to climatic factors or export market changes or at the end of a season whenearly closure is necessitated by low livestock numbers. This industry cycle combinedwith vertical integration sees New Zealand employers retain the ability to close plants
where industrial problems occur and stream livestock to plants where workers would
agree to accept lower terms and conditions of work. While seasonality can grant meatindustry unions strategic industrial strength (Jerrard, 2000; Stewart, 1998), thedownside has been the “discriminatory preferential hiring and firing by employers
from one season to another” (Curtis and Reveley, 2001: 144). This weakens union
strength when elected representatives are excluded from jobs by employers and also
discourages workers from taking on delegate roles because of the greater threat totheir job security and ongoing income.
The wages across the industry have not compensated for the poor working conditions.
During the 1970s-1980s, wages were underpinned by a national minimum withagreements on additional payments and conditions negotiated with individual
employers. Between 1971 and 1985, meat industry wages appeared comparatively
high with the mean being 23.6 per cent above the manufacturing sector mean (Dixon,
1995). However, the manufacturing sector lagged behind the wages mean for all
sectors with the result that “a Union survey in 1985 found that meat workers’ wage
increases were 40 per cent behind the Department of Labour statistics for average
wage increases, and 43.2 per cent behind inflation from 1975-1985” (Hall, 2001).
Mean wage figures also hid disparities between different sections of the industry andbetween the larger employers who paid higher wages and the smaller employers who
paid lower (Brown, Medoff and Hamilton, 1990). Wages in the industry havecontinued to be perceived as unnecessarily high. During the 1970s-1980s, theemployers compensated for wages costs through the ‘protection’ of the industry
licensing scheme operated by the Meat Industry Authority (MIA), from the pricesupports provided to farmers by the Meat Board (Dixon, 1995; Savage, 1990), and by
wages freezes across sections of the industry (Hall, 2001).
However, in 1984, Prime Minister Lange announced a fundamental change in New
Zealand economic policy with the proposed elimination of export subsidies and otherforms of protection. In 1985, the Supplementary Minimum Price Scheme and Meat
Board price were removed (Dixon, 1995) resulting in a decline in the meat processing
industry’s returns (Savage, 1990) and leaving producers and exporters entirely reliant
on export market returns (Trade New Zealand, 2003). This decision was the catalyst
for the final withdrawal of the foreign-owned companies from the New Zealandindustry. From the unions’ perspective, the outcome was a continuation of therelatively low wage settlements negotiated in previous wages rounds so that the realhourly earnings of members fell to approximately 110 per cent of the manufacturingindustry mean by 1988 (Dixon, 1995: 25) and were two to three per cent below the- 42 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
national average wage (Hall, 2001). Real wages for New Zealand meatworkers
continued to fall throughout the remainder of the 1980s into the 1990s.
The 1990s saw the rationalisation of the North Island industry with the withdrawal offoreign ownership and the trend towards farmer co-operatives and smaller, boutiqueabattoirs, the move to being an export-driven industry, and the introduction of the
Employment Contracts Act (ECA) with its increased flexibility for employers. Thesechanges “meant that [some] companies no longer operate[d] on a seasonal basis but
ha[d] twelve-months contracts to complete” (MIA media release, 2000, 21 May). This
meant increased job security for meatworkers and the change reflected similar shifts
in the export section of the Australian meat processing industry where seasonality was
no longer a major factor in union-employer negotiations.

Australian meat processing industry: background and current situation
The ownership and regulation of the Australian industry has changed considerably
since the industry began in the 1860s. Australian-based pastoralists owned anddeveloped the Australian industry in its formative years. The pattern changed to
British ownership with the entry of companies such as Borthwicks (Harrison, 1963)
and Vesteys (d’Abbs, 1970) into the industry at the turn of the twentieth century. The
American-owned Swifts followed. The other main player was the Australiancompany, William Angliss. The foreign-owned companies operated for six to sevendecades before withdrawing; export ownership again returned to Australian control in
the 1970s and 1980s.
In 1984, Australia Meat Holdings (AMH) was formed as a consortium through themerger of four Australian-owned meat processing companies: Walkers, Smorgons,
Tancreds, and Metro Meats. In 1988, Elders bought out the other partners but thensold AMH to the large American meat processor, ConAgra, over the period 19931996 (Rolfe and Reynolds, 1999), with only a ten per cent Australian equity retained(Taylor, 1998). Between 1984 and 1988, a far-reaching rationalisation of the industry
followed and five of eleven AMH plants were closed, mostly in north Queensland(Rolfe, 1988; Taylor, 1998; Rolfe and Reynolds, 1999). Over 50 plants acrossAustralia were closed in the late 1980s into the 1990s, especially in the eastern states.
In 1986, AMH purchased the British-owned Borthwicks plants in Mackay andBowen. This gave AMH the dominant section of the north Queensland market with 56
per cent of the total processing capacity for that year and ten per cent of the exportindustry (Taylor, 1998). However, in 1988, the Trade Practices Commission (TPC)
forced AMH to divest ownership of the Borthwicks plants and these were sold to theJapanese company, Nippon Meat Packers, which had already purchased a Queensland
plant in Oakey (Taylor, 1998; Rolfe and Reynolds, 1999). Japanese business interests
had begun investing in vertical integration in the industry – grazing, feedlots, abattoirs(Meat Research Corporation, 1997; Hayes et al., 1999) in the mid 1980s. Kerry
Packer also began increasing his interests in the meat industry with a 55 per centinterest in Teys Bros (The Meatworker, 1988, 3) and ownership of Consolidated Meat
Group (CMG). In August 2002, CMG merged fully with Teys Bros, under the lattercompany name. From the 1990s, AMH, the Australian-owned Consolidated Meat
Group (CMG), and the Japanese-owned Nippon Meat Packers (MLIR, 1996: 26) hadMeat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 43 become the dominant industry players with Victorian-owned beef producer, G & K
O’Connor ranking fourth. The current industry ownership remains split between thelargely foreign-owned beef export industry centred in Queensland and the Australianowned domestic beef and lamb processing industry based in New South Wales andVictoria.
It was estimated that in 1996 at least 35 per cent of all processing output in Australia
was foreign-owned (MLIR, 1996), with the level of ownership in the export section of
the industry now being considerably higher, exceeding 75 per cent (IBISWorld
Australia, 2006). AMH remains the key player in the industry with four export
abattoirs in Queensland. Since its parent company, ConAgra, entered into a 2002 joint
venture resulting in ownership being transferred to the American food company Swift& Co, Swifts again has a presence in the Australian meat industry (IBISWorld, Pty
Ltd 2000-2002: 18; Australian Financial Review, 23 May 2002).
During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Australian meat industry experienced market
fluctuation as initially stock prices increased because of drought conditions and theninternational demand for red meat shrank with the various health scares overseas(Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and foot and mouth disease). The 1990s also
saw deterioration in the market as consumer tastes changed from red meat to whitemeat (IRM, 1991). Pressure was placed on all parts of the industry, including theunion and the employer bodies.
The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) is the industry peak representative
body for Australian-based companies involved with the processing and marketing of
red meat to domestic and export markets (AMIC, 2005). AMIC was formed in 2003
as a result of the merger between the National Meat Association of Australia (NMAA)
and the Australian Meat Council (AMC). The NMAA had been the employer body forthe industry and was formerly known as the Meat and Allied Trades Federation(MAFTA). MAFTA was formed in 1928 but changed its name in May 1996. The
employer association was also represented on the Meat Industry Consultative
Committee (MICC) that was formed to promote employment relations change in theindustry in the 1990s. Its current industrial relations agenda involves furtheringchanges aimed at making efficiency gains within the industry by utilising
opportunities provided by the 2005 WorkChoices changes to build on the 1999
removal of the tally system from the Federal meat industry processing award by theAustralian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) and subsequent removal from allmeat industry awards (Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act 2001; Riley,2002; Stewart, 2002). The tally had previously set the daily throughput in an abattoir
and was a key source of AMIEU industrial strength (Jerrard, 2000).
In 2002, there was a Federal Senate investigation into the advisory and regulatory
structures of the Australian meat industry. Its aim was to achieve the most effective
arrangements for the allocation of export quotas of meat to both the USA and Europe,
especially leading up to the finalisation of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between
Australia and the United States in 2004. Australian based livestock producers, meat
export processors, and industry representative bodies had hoped that the FTA would
open more of the American red meat market to Australian producers. However, an 18
year delay before any increase in export quotas to the USA has effectively eliminatedAustralian expectations. Such agreements with Australia’s southeast Asian trading- 44 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
partners, particularly China, hold promise for Australian meat exporters but there
remains the threat that these countries may prefer to import live animals, rather than theprocessed meat, to avoid the high tariffs on processed meat (Jerrard, 2005). The New
Zealand industry does not face the threat of live animal exports at this stage.

Comparative indicators between the industries regarding ownership
To date, it can be seen that rationalisation in the face of competitive pressures andownership changes has seen a restructuring of both the New Zealand and the Australianmeat processing industries. In New Zealand, ownership has remained in the hands ofdomestic producers, with two of them being cooperatives, while in Australia, foreign
ownership again dominates after a brief respite in the 1970s and early 1980s. Bothindustries have followed the American path towards an oligopoly of large producers(Andreas, 1994), using sophisticated human resource management practices andstrategies to manage their workforces and begin decollectivising the workplace. In
this, the companies have certainly been assisted by favourable employment relations
legislation in both countries.

Two decades of industrial relations changes in New Zealand
The compulsory arbitration years that began in 1891 offered New Zealand unions araft of legal protections and rights which resulted in a number of them developing
highly centralised structures and becoming dependent upon the system rather thanrelying upon workplace organising (Barry and May, 2003). These unions, including
the Meat Union Aotearoa and its industry predecessors, were to feel the impact of thisstructure and strategy under the ECA.
Between 1987 and the end of the “Arbitration Era” in 1991, New Zealand industrial
relations legislation underwent “two radical changes” (Geare, 2001: 307). These saw
the system move away from arbitration to collective bargaining under the Labour
Government’s (1984-1990) Labour Relations Act 1987 (Geare, 1989) and then thedismantling of collective bargaining and removal of statutory interference in
employment relations under the National Party Government’s ECA (Geare, 2001;
Boxall and Haynes, 1997), prior to a third phase of change under the Employment
Relations Act 2000 (ERA).
Under the ECA, state support for unions was removed with the dismantling of thenational award-system of multi-employer bargaining (Harbridge, Walsh andWilkinson, 2002), the withdrawal of all exclusive rights of unions (Geare, 1991;
Hince and Vranken, 1991), the reduced role for unions in workplace employment
relations (Cullinane, 2001), and the changes to freedom of association that reversed
half a century of union membership (Geare, 2001). Unions became incorporated
societies and registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, which covered“societies not established for economic gain” (Hince and Vranken, 2001: 478). In thisway, there was no need for the ECA to even mention unions, thus effectively
sidelining them.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 45 These legislative changes were directly responsible for the decline in union
membership in the private sector (Harbridge et al., 2002) as employers moved toindividual contracts instead of collective bargaining and free-riding “substantially
increased” (Harbridge et al., 2002: 65). During the 1990s, union density subsequently
fell to around 17 per cent of the workforce and membership fell by 50 per cent(Harbridge et al., 2002), with the private sector suffering worst (Harbridge et al.,2002). However, union decline was not even across all sectors and depended upon anumber of factors, including the industry, the size of the union and union
concentration within the industry, and the union’s success in recruiting and reducing
free-riders (Harbridge et al., 2002). Small unions were forced to amalgamate tosurvive; for example, the Meat Union Aotearoa was formed on 1 August 1994 by theamalgamation of the Auckland and Tomoana Freezing Workers Union and the Westand East Coast Branches of the New Zealand Meat and Related Trades Workers
Union (Cooke interview, 2002; www.meatunion.org.nz, 2005).
Collective bargaining halved between 1989-1990 and 1999-2000 and employees notcovered under collective bargaining moved to individual employer contracts(Harbridge and Walsh, 2002). The decentralised system of employment relations was
accompanied by significant changes to employment conditions that meant a reduction
for many employees: “Even where collective bargaining has continued, a weakened
union movement operating under conditions of economic recession has not been able
to guarantee the protection of employment conditions” (Harbridge and Walsh 2002:
426). This has been particularly true in less skilled sectors of the economy where an
excess of labour has further strengthened the employers’ position. Further, unions
which had depended upon state protection to any degree faced financial hardship andreduced numbers of officials who had greater difficulty accessing workplaces (Boxalland Haynes, 1997).
The Labour-Alliance Government’s ERA, effective since October 2000, has
encouraged collective bargaining, reinstated union registration, and supported theroles of trade unions but without restoring the historical forms of state protection(Harbridge and Walsh, 2002; Walsh and Harbridge 2001; Wilson, 2001). In thissense, Anderson’s (2004: 19) claim that the ERA “has returned trade unions to thecentre stage of industrial relations” may be overly positive, especially as union
membership figures have not increased accordingly (Anderson, 2004; Department ofLabour, 2001-2005). The ERA focuses on the relationships between employers andtrade unions and promotes good faith procedural requirements (Boxall, 2001). Under
the ERA, bargaining still remains decentralised (Boxall, 2001), although it is now
possible for unions that are large enough and industrially strong enough to negotiate
multi-enterprise single employer agreements with a view to returning to a multiemployer agreement across an industry (Harbridge et al., 2002; Boxall, 2001).
Harbridge and Walsh (2002) predict that the most successful unions under the ERA
will be those that can successfully extend enterprise bargaining arrangements to beindustry-wide multi-employer agreements. This prediction also has implications forthe new competitive unionism promoted under the ERA as it is unlikely that newly
established, small unions will be able to bargain on this scale, as has been shown inthe meat industry.
In the North Island, the ECA took away collective bargaining rights for the Meat
Union Aotearoa and individual contracts were used by employers. The North Island

- 46 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
industry followed the pattern identified by Harbridge and Moulder (1993) where asignificant collapse in collective bargaining in agriculture and food manufacturing
occurred under the early years of the ECA’s operation. At the time of the legislation’s
introduction, a new national award for the meat industry was being negotiated but the
MIA advised its members that they would be in a stronger business position if theyabandoned the award and the farmers and owners of the plants saw the benefit ofindividual contracts (Hall, 2001). From the Meat Union Aotearoa’s perspective, “in1991, industry employers in the North Island [developed] a plan to decimate the meatindustry; on the day collective bargaining expired, farmer-driven change caused the
take-up of individual contracts by organised employers” (Cooke interview, 2002).
This coincided with the rationalisation of the industry as large urban-based plants
closed and the Vestey Company withdrew from the New Zealand industry. The large
plants were replaced with smaller, dispersed, regional plants at greenfield sites thatwere non-union and which remained non-union until the end of 2000. Despite thegeographical dispersion of the industry, the withdrawal from the industry of the lastinternational player encouraged New Zealand employers to provide a more united
front to the smaller North Island industry unions than previously, thus removing fromthem a key source of external strength in employer fragmentation (Curtis andReveley, 2001). Their inability to organise new sites and to resource existing union
sites forced the smaller unions to amalgamate, forming the Meat Union Aotearoa, in
an attempt to gain union access.
However, Aotearoa Secretary, Graham Cooke (2002), stated thatthe employees at these new sites were too scared to join and there wasno right of access for the union … A worker was dismissed if he [orshe] complained to the Union.
At the same time as the fear of dismissal for union membership was increasing acrossthe industry, the New Zealand Government introduced stringent criteria for access tounemployment benefits which would have precluded dismissed unionised
meatworkers (Cooke interview, 2002). Therefore, a combination of factors such as theclosure of existing unionised plants and the opening of new smaller non-union plants
and a more united employer front combined with the ECA and changes to the welfare
system, served to de-unionise large sections of the meat industry in the North Island
during the 1990s. Members at the unionised plants that continued to operate retained
their membership of the Meat Union Aotearoa (Cooke interview, 2002) but the union
was in a relatively powerless position and could not retain the conditions that had
been won over the years prior to the ECA.
Under the ECA, the North Island meat industry employees’ wages were further
reduced by decreases in hourly rates and the loss of the forty hour week, the loss ofpenalty rates and shift allowances, the loss of extra holiday leave for shift workers,
and pressure not to report accidents because this reduced productivity (Cookeinterview, 2002; Hall, 2001). This also increased employee turnover, with anestimated 50 per cent turnover in plants on the North Island (Hall, 2001), which maderecruiting and organising a more difficult task and negated the union’s ability toengage in effective industrial campaigns. It also affected management’s businessstrategy and increased hiring costs, thus negating many of the productivity gains being
made in other areas.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 47 -While strikes and stop work meetings decreased during the 1990s, the South Island
officials do not believe that it was necessarily due to the ECA (Eastlake interview,
2002; Niles interview, 2002). Instead, the rationalisation of the industry, the weakened
position of the North Island union, and the changes to the national welfare systemprobably combined to limit industrial unrest. In the South Island, the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union was able to keep “hard won conditions in most documents”(Eastlake interview, 2002) because it retained larger numbers of members at theexisting plants and large numbers at a workplace grant industrial strength to a unionand strengthens its ability to protect its members. The threat of industrial action
therefore remained a weapon in such larger trade unions’ armoury.
In the South Island, the voluntary unionism under the ECA did not result in the mass
exodus of NZ Meatworkers’ members predicted by Government and industry
employers because of the extensive range of services, the union’s ability to continuecommunicating with the large employers in the ‘usual way’, and the “’proud tradition’of the Meatworkers” (Eastlake interview, 2002; Niles interview, 2002). The
retrospective view of the NZ Meatworkers’ officials, expressed in late 2002, was thatthe employers:“… should have stopped payroll deductions [for union membership]
under the Act if politicians wanted to attack unions such as
meatworkers. Hard won conditions stayed in most documents covering
the industry but only with a return to the ‘old ways’.… Small groups
of workers are hard to service in some industries, for example, timberwith only two to three people per site. Large groups of workers give
more muscle and this was meatworkers’ experience [in the South
Island].
During the ECA era, membership of the NZ Meatworkers’ Union stayed high –around ninety per cent density (NZ Meatworkers’ Union Annual Figures, 1992-2000;
Eastlake interview, 2002) - which enabled it to retain a relatively significant position
within the industry. This allowed it to use its industrial strength for the benefit of its
members, if needed. There were some South Island plant closures, largely due toreceivership and the changing nature of the export market that halved sheep numbers,costing membership jobs and numbers. The South Island experience was vastlydifferent from that of the North Island. Some new boutique plants have opened in
Nelson and other locations but, under the ERA, these have been unionised.
The NZ Meatworkers’ Union does not see the potential for new unions to form under
the ERA as a threat to its position “due to nature of industry [in the South Island]”(Eastlake interview, 2002). It identified only one small plant in the North Island wherea new union - the Te Kuiti Beef Workers Inc - had formed and which the Meat Union
Aotearoa unsuccessfully attempted to have deregistered (Barry and May, 2002; May
et al., 2002). The Meat Union Aotearoa identified a further two instances wherecompanies set up new unions: one company set up a greenfield site and encouraged
workers to join the Engineers’ Union and Wallace Meats set up a union on site incompetition with the Meat Union Aotearoa. The latter situation meant that effective
negotiations could not occur because employees were split, reducing the outcomes ofbargaining for both groups. However, employees in the Meat Union Aotearoa faired

- 48 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
slightly better which encouraged members of the new union to join either the Meat
Union Aotearoa (Cooke, 2002) or the NZ Meatworkers’ Union. These two unions
formed a joint agreement in 2002 to cover this site. The Meat Union Aotearoa also
acknowledged that there was little that could be done about free riders but favoured
the approach promoted by the Dairy Workers’ Union requiring non-unionised
employees to donate to a union cause if they did not want to join the union forcollective agreement coverage.
The ERA has supposedly introduced a fairer employment law framework for allparties (Boxall, 2001; Wilson, 2001), despite the large number of ECA reforms thathave been carried over into the ERA (Roth, 2001). Harrison (2001: 86) argues that
North Island employers have not acted in good faith because the maintenance of “thereciprocal duties of good faith towards each other” required by the ERA has notoccurred. The NZ Meatworkers’ Union believes that “in general, employers [in theSouth Island] seem to be attempting to conduct their businesses in good faith … but
membership density might be responsible [for this]” (Eastlake interview, 2002) as theSouth Island Union was able to retain a much higher density during the ECA years
than its North Island counterpart. The Secretary of the Canterbury Branch of the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union believes that:“…good rapport with employers and a good relationship is needed [forgood faith bargaining and] changes in law mean that the good faith ofthe past should continue and has [done so] before it became part of thelaw. Some times employers want to set everything down, for example,
times and numbers of meetings, agenda, and so on. This is a threat for
both parties.” (Niles interview, 2002)
This is because it reduces flexibility for both parties and undermines the trust in therelationship that necessarily underpins good faith.
The return to collective bargaining has had positive union outcomes. Industry
seasonality continues to allow employers to use shortage of stock as a threat (Cookeinterview, 2002). On the South Island, the union is negotiating agreements across each
employer, which takes time but has the benefits of a core agreement across several
plants owned by one company (34th Annual Report of the NZ Meatworkers andRelated Trades Union, 2005). The long-term objective of the NZ Meatworkers’ Union
is for industry wide agreements across each island.
The ERA reinstated union access to workplaces so that all former non-union sites
were again accessible to the unions and employees at previously non-unionised sites
rejoined the Meat Union Aotearoa (Cooke interview, 2002). The NZ Meatworkers’
Union acknowledged that while there were:“…more rights now,… previously [the union] used delegates at theworkplace [in lieu of Organisers]. Only if there was a nonunionised
workplace to enter, was there a problem, and there was only one nonunionised plant in the South Island and this has now changed under the
ERA”. (Eastlake interview, 2002)

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 49 The NZ Meatworkers’ General Secretary also acknowledged that legislation is notalways to blame for difficulties in relations between the union and an employer
because there may be occasions when “an Organiser might not get along with an
employer and personality differences need to be allowed for” by the union’s executive(Eastlake interview, 2002).
In 2002, Secretary, Graham Cooke, foreshadowed a crisis in succession planning for
the Meat Union Aotearoa caused by an ageing membership leading to a dearth ofyounger union officials and by the union’s restrictive rules as to who could stand for
an elected position; namely, only meatworkers engaged in the industry, not unionappointed, were eligible for nomination. He recognised that the changes in theindustry in the North Island and in the New Zealand employment relations legislation
generally had a greater impact on the union than was the case for the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union in the South Island. His long term plan to protect the Meat
Union Aotearoa’s membership necessitated working more closely with the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union. The culmination is seen in the recent amalgamation of the two
New Zealand unions under the auspices of the South Island union (34th Annual Reportof the NZ Meatworkers and Related Trades Union, 2005). The decision of the Meat
Union Aotearoa to become a branch of the NZ Meatworkers’ Union strengthens theindustrial and bargaining strength of the union and achieves “unity among
meatworkers” in New Zealand (34th Annual Report of the NZ Meatworkers andRelated Trades Union, 2005) with only one industry union, a situation similar to thatin Australia.

Two decades of employment relations changes in Australia
Since 1904, the Federal conciliation and arbitration system has had wide-ranging
impacts upon the Australian meat industry. Historically, wages and conditions in theindustry were by “a multiplicity of award coverage at Federal, State, and enterpriselevel” (Industries Assistance Commission, 1989: 21) - forty-five Federal awards still
covered the meat processing industry as recently as 1994 (Productivity Commission1998). Initially, the industry was State-regulated with wages boards and State-systemsof arbitration operating. From 1965, the industry generally fell under Federal
jurisdiction (Productivity Commission, 1998).
During the Prices and Incomes Accord years of the 1980s prior to enterprisebargaining, meatworkers in the export section benefited from the competitive natureof the industry as the market grew (Curran interview, 2003). The Industrial Relations
Act 1988, under s112 and s115, permitted parties to establish employment conditions
without the requirement that a log of claims or a dispute exist (Hawke and Wooden,2001). These sections allowed formal negotiations to occur above the existing award
conditions. However, above award negotiations had been carried out in strongly
unionised industries, such as the meat industry, prior to these provisions andcontinued without recourse to the Act or the AIRC. These informal agreements had
substantive impact on employment conditions in the industry and were aimed at
protecting the tally system, job control, working hours, and union preference clauses.
The AMIEU was able to negotiate for higher wages at a workplace level because
employers competed for experienced meatworkers to meet productivity targets (Anear- 50 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
interview, 1997; Curran interview, 2003). This was facilitated by the strong
workplace delegate structure within the export section of the industry. The AMIEU
effectively bypassed the Australian Council of Trade Union’s (ACTU) policy of wage
restraint but could not formalise these agreements under the award system without
breaching the Accord. This pattern of informal agreements was underpinned by the
AMIEU’s militancy which meant that a threat of interrupting throughput during thepeak season further increased the likelihood of gaining higher wages, especially in atight labour market.
In 1989, the meat processing industry was “characterised by a highly unionised labour
force and a high degree of industrial unrest” (Industries Assistance Commission,
1989: 21). This pattern was also identified by the AIRC in 1991 and by the AMIEU
itself, which stated that “relations between the Union, workers and employers [were]steadily becoming even more strained” (IRM, 1991: 11). The AMIEU did not identify
specific causes beyond the general “system” and “employers” (IRM, 1991: 11). Since
the early 1990s, the industry has negotiated wages and conditions at the workplace
under Federal and State enterprise bargaining frameworks (Productivity Commission,1998). However, the pattern of industrial relations prevailing in the Australian meatindustry remains adversarial, despite the adoption of enterprise bargaining and thesubsequent restrictions of the Workplace Relations Act (Anear interview, 1997;
Jerrard, 2000; Stewart, 2002).
The system of enterprise bargaining was introduced for a number of reasons,
including the internationalisation of the Australian economy, the push by employers
for more flexibility, and the political lobbying and new managerialism of the BusinessCouncil of Australia (BCA), as well as the attempt by the ACTU to renew union
solidarity after its erosion behind centralised wages fixing (Briggs, 2001). It was
accompanied by a continuation of the ACTU-driven policy of union amalgamations(Griffin, 2002; Hose and Rimmer, 2002). AMIEU officials believed that the ACTUproposed amalgamation with the general Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) would
weaken its industry position through loss of identity and militancy, the bases fromwhich its industrial strength derived (Day, interview, 1996; Meicklejohn interview,1997). The members were convinced of this and voted against amalgamation.
Enterprise bargaining agreements during the initial phase were ‘in addition to’ theexisting award system in many industries. In the meat processing and export industry,enterprise bargaining was regarded both warily and opportunistically by the AMIEU
because it saw a way to roll awards over into enterprise bargaining agreements andcontinue over-award direct bargaining. The passing of the Industrial Relations ReformAct 1993 did not impact significantly upon enterprise bargaining arrangements in themeat industry.
As rounds of bargaining progressed, the AMIEU and most of the industry employers,
found that enterprise bargaining did not fulfil the promises made in the early 1990s.
The outcomes from bargaining were a number of separate enterprise agreements
which, apart from the initial AMH agreements (preamble, C No. N1216 of 1996), had
few variations in content, despite the time and resources put into the negotiations by
the AMIEU and employers’ representatives. Consequently, industry level negotiations
throughout the 1990s would have benefited all parties except AMH by using less
AMIEU and employer time and resources. The employers operated on different scales

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 51 of economy so smaller companies could not afford to invest in the technology
required to follow AMH’s lead, meaning these “industry employers saw thebargaining process as a means of cost cutting” (Meicklejohn interview, 1997) rather
than workplace reform aimed at increasing productivity.
The industry was still coming to terms with the enterprise bargaining process whenfurther legislative change occurred. The Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA),
particularly the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), haspromoted a pro-employer agenda that raises the question of the legitimacy ofcollective bargaining and union involvement in workplace negotiations (Deery and
Mitchell, 1999; Lee, 2002). The AMIEU has, on occasion, utilised AWAs for theprotection of its members (Jerrard, 2000) when employers have attempted to use
individual contracts to undermine industry wages and conditions. Where the union has
been vulnerable is in protecting ongoing employment of its members, with a numberof smaller, rural abattoirs putting meatworkers on daily and short term contracts. This
strategy negates the union’s position at the workplace because the contracts
undermine the delegate structure at the workplace. These contracts, when used inconjunction with freedom of association provisions under the WRA, can severely
limit union access to workplaces. The freedom of association provisions, while
theoretically aimed at providing employees with a choice of union membership, wereactually aimed at making union recruitment more difficult (Lee and Peetz, 1998).
The WRA provided for protected industrial action during bargaining periods.
However, the use of this provision has operated to the detriment of unions as
employers increasingly resorted to lockouts. In the meat industry, a number of Federal
Court hearings resulting from this provision have seen the AMIEU utilising alegalistic strategy when dealing with employers. Restricted right of entry and thechanges to union security arrangements, particularly closed shops and different forms
of union preference in employment, have also provided hurdles for unions to
overcome (Weeks, 1997). While the AMIEU has not directly suffered as a result of
these provisions, it regards the award simplification process as a direct attack upon it(Richardson interview, 2003). The 2001 amendments to the WRA removed tallies
from meat industry awards and undermined the union’s industrial strength and its
ability to control throughput.
Although the Australian meat industry has had no single national system fordetermining wages and conditions (Shaw, 1997), this is set to change with the passingof the Federal Government’s WorkChoices reforms which are aimed at providing asingle unified employment relations system that effectively overrides the Statesystems. WorkChoices also aims to further reduce trade union influence at theworkplace and restrict union operations in general both directly and indirectly,
through reducing the role and powers of the AIRC.

Assessing the meat industry unions’ strategies
The key meat industry unions in both New Zealand and Australia still retain elementsof their traditional militancy which continues to underpin relations with employers.
Overall, the strategies adopted have been in response to changes in the external

- 52 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
environment, notably with regard to legislation, but also with regard to industry
ownership changes and restructuring over the last two decades.
Meat Union Aotearoa
In New Zealand, the changes in the 1990s impacted more upon the Meat Union
Aotearoa because a combination of the ECA, industry rationalisation and new
employer strategy served to ‘create’ the amalgamated union in 1994 and then tofurther undermine the new union’s industry coverage and position. Despite theamalgamation, it lost the ability to organise effectively under the ECA when the larger
urban-based abattoirs were replaced by the growth of numerous smaller, non-union,
greenfield plants across the North Island. Subsequently, the decline in membershipand industry position meant that the Secretary was forced to seek new ways of
positioning the union, including the long term plan to amalgamate with the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union.
The ECA provided minimal opportunity through the legal system (Cooke interview,2002) and the Meat Union Aotearoa was forced to work directly with employers inpartnership arrangements in the few remaining unionised plants in the North Island.
Under the ERA, the union attempted to return to the solid organising combined withservicing typical of the ‘classic’ union strategy (Boxall and Haynes, 1997) andexperienced some resurgence in membership, but not enough to negate the benefits ofamalgamation.
NZ Meatworkers’ Union
The NZ Meatworkers’ Union fared better under the ECA because the South Island
industry structure remained relatively stable, enabling the union to retain most of its
membership and therefore a higher degree of industrial effectiveness. While the union
could not make gains on behalf of its members during the 1990s, it “did not lose
ground for members” (Eastlake interview, 2002). In hindsight, this is a significant
achievement resulting in a stronger position for the union under the ERA. In
particular, the retention of membership density meant that it emerged from the ECA
era in a relatively strong position and did not need to rely on the ERA to regain
membership. The major ERA benefit was probably an increase in industrial strength
for the NZ Meatworkers’ Union that enabled a move towards multi-workplaceagreements as a result of the return to collective bargaining.
AMIEU
While the AMIEU made over-award gains on behalf of its members in the 1980s, theunion was unable to have these ratified by the AIRC and included in industry awards.
Consequently, under enterprise bargaining, many of the gains were lost when theunion’s bargaining position was weakened due to changing industry structure andmarket demands resulting in plant rationalisation and job losses. Despite this, theunion retained the use of industrial action as part of its overall strategy, supplemented
under the WRA, with reliance upon legal actions to challenge the employers’ positionof strength. The union faces further changes under the WorkChoices changes, pending
the outcome of the High Court legal challenges by the State Governments and the
AWU to be heard in May 2006.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 53 -Overall, the AMIEU and the NZ Meatworkers’ Union have achieved more successful
outcomes despite their weakened industry positions resulting from a combination oflegislative and economic changes. The Meat Union Aotearoa, however, was unable toretain its industry position and its independence as a stand alone union, preferring apragmatic amalgamation with the NZ Meatworkers’ Union to ensure ongoingprotection of its members.
Assessing amalgamations
As Hose and Rimmer (2002) point out, it is the officials who drive amalgamation
moves but they cannot force members to vote one way or the other. Members have towant to amalgamate because the outcome will directly benefit them. In the case of theMeat Union Aotearoa members and officials, amalgamation with the NZ
Meatworkers’ Union provided unity across the industry and membership. The
amalgamation partner was an existing industry union that was not dissimilar in
identity and operation to their own union. The amalgamation also provided greater
financial reserves and other resources to fund campaigns and membership of a union
proven to be fairly successful in retaining its industry position, membership density,and negotiation outcomes during the fairly hostile employment relations climate of the
1990s.
By comparison, the AMIEU response to proposed amalgamation was agreement by
officials and membership to oppose amalgamation. The AMIEU membership
response may reflect the conservatism of union members who fear change (Hose andRimmer, 2002; Tomkins, 1999) or, as identified by the AMIEU, it may reflect astrong sense of tradition within the membership and a sense of meatworker identity
which the members and officials knew would be lost during an amalgamation with the
AWU (Day interview, 1996; Anear interview, 1997; Luck interview, 1997;
Meicklejohn interview, 1997; Curran interview, 2003). Given the history and tradition
within the AMIEU, it was likely that the latter was a key driver of the antiamalgamation vote.
A key difference between the New Zealand situation and the Australian one is foundin the ‘choice’ of amalgamation partners. In New Zealand, the initial amalgamation toform the Meat Union Aotearoa involved three small unions within the industry
amalgamating as a result of the hostile employment relations climate under the ECA
and the need for the smaller unions to merge to ensure long-term viability and at least
some degree of protection for members. The second New Zealand amalgamation in2005 saw two industry unions choose to amalgamate. In Australia, an industry union
was to amalgamate with a general union with limited meat industry coverage and theamalgamation was not initiated by the partners but was driven by the ACTU. Given
the differences in circumstances surrounding amalgamations in the two countries, thedifferent outcomes are explained.

Winners and survivors
From the discussion and analysis of the strategies adopted by the unions covering the
New Zealand and Australian meat processing industries, it can be concluded that- 54 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
while they may not be winners, the unions are definitely survivors. The industry
winners in each country are the companies who control the respective export markets.
They have used their industry dominance to maintain profitability through industry
rationalisation and by introducing new work practices and technologies to cut costs.
The role of legislation in promoting employment relations changes favourable toemployers has been an important factor in shaping the industry in each country, but
the impact of such legislation on the industry’s unions has been shown to be quite
different between the two Islands of New Zealand. The essentially different
experience has resulted in the amalgamation of the two New Zealand unions to offer
unified industry coverage across the whole country. In Australia, the experience of the
AMIEU shows some similarity with that of the NZ Meatworkers’ Union in that bothwere relatively successful in retaining industry coverage and density and both wereable to adapt to changing legislation and bargaining conditions.
Finally, the issue of foreign versus domestic ownership was discussed in the article tohighlight industry differences between the two countries. However, it appears that theissue may be better framed as ‘who is a good employer’ rather than ‘is the employer aforeign-owned company’? This is particularly important as bargaining in good faith toachieve mutually satisfactory outcomes for the employer and for the union and its
members remains central to determining wages and conditions in both New Zealandand Australia.

References
AFFCO (2003), www.affco.co.nz/, accessed 12 December 2003.
Alliance (2004), www.alliance.co.nz/, accessed 12 December 2003.
AMIC (2005), www.amic.asn.au, accessed 1 February, 2005.
Anderson, (2004), A New Unionism? The Legal Dimension of Union
Structures in New Zealand. In Barry, M. and Brosnan, P. (eds.), New
Economies: New Industrial Relations, Proceedings of the 18th AIRAANZ
Conference, vol. 1, Noosa, Qld, 3-6 February, pp. 12-21.
Andreas, C. (1994), Meatpackers and Beef Barons: Company Town in a Global Economy,
Niwot, CO: University of Colorado Press.
Anear, D. (1997) Unpublished interview with former State Secretary, AMIEU (Qld), East
Brisbane, 15 December.
Australian Financial Review (2002), 23 May.
Barry, M. and May, R. (2002), ‘United We Stand, Multiplied We Fall: New Unions and the
New Zealand Employment Relations Act’. In Andrew, I. & Geare, A. (eds.) AIRAANZ 2002:
Proceedings of the 16th Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New
Zealand Conference, vol. 2, Queenstown, 5-9 February, 11-18.
Bird, G. (2003), Unpublished interview with State Secretary, AMIEU (Vic), Carlton, 12
November.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 55 -Boxall, P. (2001), Evaluating Continuity and Change in the Employment Relations Act 2000,
New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(1): 27-44.
Boxall, P. and Haynes, P. (1997), Strategy and Trade Union Effectiveness in a Neo-Liberal
Environment, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(4): 567-591.
Briggs, C. (2001), Australian Exceptionalism: The Role of Trade Unions in the Emergence ofEnterprise Bargaining, Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1): 27-43.
Brown, C., Medoff, J. and Hamilton, J. (1990), Employers: Large and Small, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Celikkol, P. and Stefanou, S.E. (2004), Productivity Growth Patterns in US Food
Manufacturing: Case of Meat Products Industry, Discussion Paper CES 04-04, Centre for
Economic Studies, Washington DC.
CMP (2005), www.cmp.co.nz/, accessed 10 December 2005.
C No. N1216 of 1996 Certified Agreement between Australia Meat Holdings and the AMIEU(Qld).
Cooke, G. (2002), Unpublished interview with General Secretary, Meat Union, Union Office,
Auckland, 3 December.
Cullinane, J. (2001), Workplace Determinants of Union Presence in New ZealandOrganisations, International Journal of Manpower, 22(4): 380-392.
Curran, W. (2003), Unpublished interview with former State Secretary, AMIEU (Vic),
Williamstown 26 November.
Curtis, B. and Reveley, J. (2001), Producers, Processors and Unions: The Meat Producers
Board and Labour Relations in the New Zealand Meat Industry, 1952-1971, Australian
Economic History Review, 41(2): 135-158.
D’Abbs, P. (1970) The Vestey Story, Melbourne: AMIEU (Vic).
Day, L. (1996), Unpublished interview with former State Secretary, AMIEU (Qld),
East Brisbane, 14 December.
Deery, S. and Mitchell, R. (1999), Employment Relations, Individualisation and Union
Exclusion, Sydney, The Federation Press.
Department of Labour (2001-2005), Total Membership Numbers as at 1 March, 2001-2005.
Dixon, S. (1995), The Inter-Industry Wage Structure, 1971-1994, Labour Market Bulletin, 1:
41-71.
Eastlake, D. (2002), Unpublished interview with General Secretary, NZ Meatworkers’ Union,
Trade Union Centre, 199 Armagh Street, Christchurch, 9 December.
Geare, A.J. (1989), New Directions in New Zealand Labour Legislation: The Labour
Relations Act 1987, International Labour Review, 128(2): 213-228.

- 56 - Marjorie A. Jerrard
Geare, A.J. (2001), ‘The Employment Contracts Act 1991-2000: A Decade of Change’, New
Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(3): 307-315.
Griffin, G. (2002), Union Mergers in Australia: Top-Down Strategic Restructuring, NKCIRWorking Paper No. 80, Melbourne, Monash University, April.
Hall, R. (2001), Production-Motivated and Profit-Driven, Report on the Meat Sector in New
Zealand, submitted by the Meat and Related Trades Workers’ Union of Aotearoa to the IUF
Global Meat Workers’ Conference, Toronto, September 17-19, 1-4.
Harbridge, R. and Moulder, J. (1993), Collective Bargaining and New Zealand’s Employment
Contracts Act: One Year On’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(1): 62-83.
Harbridge, R. and Walsh, P. (2002), Globalisation and Labour Market Deregulation inAustralia and New Zealand: Different Approaches, Similar Outcomes, Employee Relations,24(4): 423-436.
Harbridge, R., Walsh, P. and Wilkinson, D. (2002), Re-regulation and Union Decline in New
Zealand: Likely Effects, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 27(1): 65-77.
Harrison, G. (1963) Borthwicks: A Century in the Meat Trade, 1863-1963, London, Thomas
Borthwick & Sons.
Harrison, R. (2001), Unions and Good Faith, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations,26(1): 85-102.
Hawke, A. and Wooden, M. (2001), Industrial Relations Reform in Australia: Implications for
the Agricultural and Mining Sectors, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 42(3): 303-319.
Hayes, G., Malcolm, B., Watson, A., O’Keefe, M. and Thatcher, L. (1999), Strategic
Alliances and the Red Meat Industry in Australia, Agribusiness Review,(http://www.agribusiness.asn.au/AgribusinessReview/redmeat.html), accessed 17 August
1999, [18 electronic pages].
Hince, K. and Vranken, M. (1991), A Controversial Reform of New Zealand Labour Law:
The Employment Contracts Act 1991, International Labour Review, 130(4): 475-493.
Hose, K. and Rimmer, M. (2002), The Australian Union Merger Wave Revisited, Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 44(4): 525-544.
IBISWorld Australia (2005), Meat Processing in Australia Market Research Industry Report –Definitions, http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/competitors.asp?industry_id=90, accessed
1 February 2005.
IBISWorld Australia (2006), Meat Processing in Australia Market Research Industry Report –Definitions, http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/competitors.asp?industry_id=90, accessed
14 February 2006.
IBISWorld Pty Ltd (2000-2002), ConAgra Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1-18.
Industrial Relations Act (Commonwealth) (1988).
Industries Assistance Commission (1989), Food Processing and Beverage Industries, Report
No.424, Canberra: AGPS.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 57 -IRM (1991), Industrial Relations & Management Letter (Incorporating Inside Trade Unions)
8:5, June.
Jerrard, M.A. (2000), ”Dinosaurs” are not dead: The AMIEU (Qld) and Industrial Relations
Change, Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(1): 5-28.
Jerrard, M.A. (2005), Exporting Animals, Exporting Jobs: Thirty Years of Campaigning
Against Live Animal Export, The Past is Before Us: Proceedings of the 9th National Labour
History Conference, 30 June–2 July, University of Sydney, Refereed Papers.
Lee, M. (2002), The Gordonstone Coal Dispute: Rights, Remedies and Union Exclusion
Under the Workplace Relations Act’, Griffith Law Review, 11(1): 169-197.
Lee, M. and Peetz, D. (1998), ‘Trade Unions and the Workplace Relations Act, Labour &Industry, 9(2): 5-22.
Luck, B. (1997), Unpublished interview with Southern District Organiser, AMIEU (Qld), East
Brisbane, 15 December.
McGuckin, R.H. and Nguyen, S.V. (1995), On Productivity and Plant Ownership Change:
New Evidence from LRD, RAND Journal of Economics, 26(2):257-276.
May, R., Walsh, P., Harbridge, R. and Thickett, G. (2002), Research Notes: Unions andUnion Membership in New Zealand: Annual Review for 2001, New Zealand Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 27(3): 307-321.
Meat Research Corporation (1997), Changing Ownership in the Australian Meat Processing
Industry: A Perspective Over Two Decades, Sydney, Meat Research Corporation.
Meicklejohn, R. (1997), Unpublished interview with Industrial Officer, AMIEU (Qld), East
Brisbane, 15 December.
MIA (2000), Media Release, 21 May.
MIA (2005), www.mia.co.nz/, accessed 12 December 2005.
MLIR (1996), Australian Meat and Livestock Reform for the Future: Steering Committee andTask Force Report, October, Canberra, AGPS.
New Zealand Meat and Related Trades Union (n.d.), History of the Meat Industry.
Nguyen, S. and Ollinger, M. (2002), Mergers and Acquisitions and Productivity in the US
Meat Products Industries: Evidence from the Micro Data, Working Paper, CES-WP 2002-07,
Centre for Economic Studies, Washington DC.
Niles, G. (2002), Unpublished interview with Canterbury Branch Secretary, NZ Meatworkers’
Union, Trade Union Centre, 199 Armagh Street, Christchurch, 9 December.
NZ Meatworkers’ Union (2002), New Zealand Meatworker Newsletter.
NZ Meatworkers’ Union (2002), NZ Meatworkers’ Information Booklet.
NZ Meatworkers’ Union (2005), 34th Annual Report of the NZ Meatworkers and Related
Trades Union.

- 58 - Marjorie A. Jerrard

NZ Meatworkers’ Union (2005), Membership Figures.
PPCS (2005), www.ppcs.co.nz/, accessed 10 December 2005.
Productivity Commission (1998), Work Arrangements in the Australian Meat Processing
Industry, Labour Market Research Report, Canberra, AusInfo.
Richardson, R. (2003), Unpublished interview with State secretary, AMIEU (Qld) andFederal AMIEU Secretary, East Brisbane, 12 July.
Richmond (2003), www.richmond.co.nz/, accessed 6 June 2003.
Riley, J. (2002) Industrial Legislation in 2001, Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(2): 198210.
Rolfe, J. and Reynolds, R. (1999), Competition and Exit in Meat Processing: A Queensland
Case Study, Australian Agribusiness Review, 7, Paper 1 [13 electronic pages].
Roth, P. (2001), Symposium: Employment Relations Act, New Zealand Journal of Industrial
Relations, 26(1): 1-4.
Savage, J. (1990), Export Meat Processing. In Savage, J. and Bollard, A. (eds.) Turning It
Around: Closure and Revitalisation in New Zealand Industry, 59-78, Auckland, Oxford
University Press.
Sinclair, R. (1997), ‘Modern Meat Plant Development’, www.proan.co.nz/news/news4.htm,
accessed 20 September, 2005.
Stewart, G. (1998), ‘Enterprise Bargaining in the Australian Meat Processing Industry: The
Case of the Fitzroy River Abattoir in Rockhampton 1994-1996’, Paper presented at the 12th
AIRAANZ Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 3-5 February.
Stewart, G. (2002), The Decline and Fall of the Tally System in the Meat Processing
Industry, Australian Bulletin of Labour, 28(3): 184-197.
Taylor, J. (1998), The Meat Processing Industry in Australia, Report commissioned by
Agribusiness from KPMG for the Meat Industry Agri-forum, September 15.
The Meatworker (1988), 17(1): 3.
Tomkins, M. (1999), Trade Union Amalgamations: Explaining the Recent Spate ofMergers in Australia, Labour & Industry, 9(3): 61-77.
Trade New Zealand (2003), Export Services, Export Statistics.
Trade New Zealand (2005), Export Services, Export Statistics.
Wailes, N. (1999), The Importance of Small Differences: The Effects of Research Design on
the Comparative Study of Industrial Relations Reform in Australia and New Zealand,International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(6): December, 1006-1030.
Weeks, P. (1997), Union Security and Changes to the Law. In Lee, M. and Sheldon, P. (eds.)
Workplace Relations: Workplace Law and Employment Relations, 118-130, Sydney,
Butterworths.

Meat Industry Unions, Industry Restructuring - 59 -Wilson, M. (2001), The Employment Relations Act: A Statutory Framework for Balance in
the Workplace, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(1): 5-11.
Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies) Act (2001)
Worksafe Australia (1994), Occupational Health and Safety Performance Overviews,
Selected Industries: Issue No. 3 – Meat Products Industry, Canberra: AGPS
www.meatunion.org.nz (2005), History.

- 60 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate –reducing supply chain vulnerability through the management of employment
relations critical control points
Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin1
Abstract
This article explores the employment relations of the primary industry supply chain fromthe New Zealand paddock to the European plate. Primary sector produce has been amajor component of New Zealand exports for a long time and has been the focus ofmajor port conflicts in 1890, 1913 and 1951, with many other less public disputes.
Supply chain concepts have been integrated with potential employment relations flash
points, and this has lead to the development of a focus on, what is described in thisarticle, as the management of employment relations critical control points. These arepoints which managers should focus on if they wish to avoid conflict which has thepotential to disrupt primary industry supply chains to northern hemisphere consumers.
Introduction
New Zealand is so remote from the rest of the world that transport has always played acentral role. Europe is exactly on the opposite side of the world to New Zealand. It could
not be further away. In New Zealand, the main cities were built around ports, or theirport suburbs. The New Zealand Official Yearbook (2004: 387) sums up the situation:“While international air and telecommunications links are helping toovercome New Zealand’s isolation as a trading nation, there remains a heavy
reliance on sea transport for movement of the bulk of the country’s exports
and imports.
The period from the late 1970s has been marked by ongoing and continuingchange in the New Zealand transport sector. Major regulatory changes haveencouraged competition within the industry and allowed the ongoing
introduction of a wide range of new technologies. Organisational changes
have seen a greater use of commercial structures for publicly owned transportsystems, with some being transferred to the private sector.”
When measured by weight, nearly all exports and imports are carried by sea (99 percent
of each, or 25 and 16 million tonnes respectively). Measured by value, the figures are 83
percent of exports and 75 percent of imports (Yearbook, 2004: 387). National shipping
policy since the 1990s has reflected the view that the country’s best interests are met by
New Zealand being a ship-using rather than a ship-operating nation. Thus, exporters and1

Dr Rupert Tipples is Senior Lecturer in Employment Relations and Dr Sandra Martin is Associate
Professor in Agribusiness in the Agriculture Group, Agricultural and Life Sciences Division, Lincoln
University.

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 61 importers have unrestricted access to carriers of their choice in a free market with highlevels of competition. Consequently, New Zealand is now served by more independent
carriers than previously (ibid.: 388).
Sea transport has been the scene of major industrial upheavals since the Maritime Strikeof 1890. Major wharf confrontations also occurred in 1913 and 1951. In both cases, thegovernment of the day won the dispute, with the strong support of the farming
community. This fertile ground for unrest has not gone away in the new millennium forGreen concludes her study of the waterfront from 1915 to 1951:“The history of labour relations on the waterfront has relevance forcontemporary developments in the ports. Increasingly casualised over the
past decade, port workers are once again facing many familiar problems,
including insecurity of employment and intensified hours of work.” (Green,
2001: 15)
Further, she suggests that those who have not learnt from the history of the waterfront
and understood it may well repeat it.
This is important today because exports still represent almost a quarter of the gross
supply of goods and services in the economy and primary exports together withsecondary sector processed goods from the primary sector make up about two-thirds ofall merchandise exports, almost all of which pass through one or more of New Zealand’ssea ports (Encyclopedia of NZ, 2005). Thus any port disruption interrupts New Zealand’s
supply chains to distant consumers with potentially disastrous economic consequences.
Transport and logistics issues form part of the wider management of agribusiness supply
chains. In recent years, the emphasis on the wider supply chain has become more
dominant. This is because consumers of agricultural products have become much moredemanding with respect to food quality and safety, variety of product offerings andinformation on products purchased (Saxowsky and Duncan, 1998). Partly in response tothese demands, the regulatory environment has changed, and not only businesses, but also
the supply chains within which they operate, are being forced to comply with theseregulations. Competition between agribusiness firms has also become more intense, andas a result of all of these forces, firms, and the chains within which they operate, areplacing far greater attention on how to most effectively meet consumer demands in themost efficient way possible. Increasing chain co-ordination is one way in which this isbeing done (Boehlje, 1999).
How these issues present themselves today is the reason for this paper. Following thisintroduction, the paper is divided in five parts. First, the role of supply chains inagribusiness in the new millennium is discussed in relation to the changing pattern ofregulation and globalization. Secondly, the key concepts underlying the agribusinesssupply chain and the roles of human resource management and changing technology arereviewed. Thirdly, a case study of the supply chain for New Zealand apples is discussed,
while fourthly attention is paid to the identification and nature of what are described as

- 62 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin‘Employment Relations Critical Control Points’. Finally, suggestions are made as to how
participants in New Zealand’s agribusiness supply chains might manage these points ofvulnerability to minimize their risks and maximize the wellbeing to New Zealand.
Agribusiness Supply Chains
In order to appreciate more fully the current situation with respect to agribusiness supply
chains, it is useful to trace their development. In the past, and more so prior toderegulation in 1984, a large volume of New Zealand’s agricultural products were sold in
bulk as commodities in a system dominated by statutory marketing boards (Martin, 1986;
Le Heron, 2005). That regime was turned around by the neo-liberal reforms of the mid
1980s, which promoted marketization, privatization and trade liberalization. Thesederegulatory changes have enhanced the role of private companies and producer
marketing boards have decreased markedly in influence. At the same time, thecommodity chains that were a feature of the pre-deregulatory era started to transform into
supply chains that stress the alignment of businesses along the chain with the purpose of
meeting the needs of the end consumer. In addition, there has been substantial
concentration in the retail sector, and a shift from government regulation of cross bordertransactions to regulation by private contract through corporate or supermarket
intermediaries.
The meat industry, in particular, has been subject to many changes over this period, withthe processing industry now being dominated by domestic firms rather than foreign
investors, and meat processors competing vigorously through product development tomeet the needs of their overseas consumers (Martin, 2004). Through these changes
producers are now coming into more direct contact with overseas purchasers, with agreater emphasis by all chain participants on “…adding value, maximizing profits,
assuring quality, defining standards, bench marking, and growing brands.” (Le Heron,2005: 54). Hence, the move from commodity to more differentiated and customerfocused production has been associated with a tightening of relationships andinterdependence of all actors along the supply chain (Le Heron, 2005: 54).
In addition to the changes in overseas markets and the greater responsiveness of supply
chains to their customers’ needs, the New Zealand end of the supply chain has been
experiencing changes in the employment relations regime as well. Essentially, theemployment relations context of the supply chain has been through two major changes
since deregulation and the move away from commodity chains. Prior to 1991 New
Zealand operated under an arbitration based system (Tipples, 1987). Then in 1991
deregulation hit employment in the form of the Employment Contracts Act. That has
been described as re-regulation (Tipples, 1995), because it did not remove all regulationof employment. Then a change of government resulted in the Employment Relations Act
2000, which was further re-regulation (Tipples, 2006), but not as extreme as the Labour
movement expected, in that it did not restore collective union powers as fully as it might
have done. However, while the level of regulation has varied, the level of enforcement
has also been variable. While the arbitration system functioned largely at the state’s
expense, that of the Employment Contracts Act was ‘user-pays’, but the real differenceGetting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 63 was that the Department of Labour was not resourced to enforce the regulations thatremained. The change to the Employment Relations Act regime was accompanied by thecreation of the Employment Relations Service, which was to help establish the new
system with a focus on building lasting employment relationships, provide information,and help those being short changed by employers to obtain redress. This has particularly
aided those working in rural occupations, which had never received much attention fromthe enforcement side of the Department of Labour. They have been helped in quest for
better conditions by the shortage of workers in the rural labour market.
More demanding consumer requirements and the greater responsiveness of supply chainsto these demands has prompted an increasing emphasis on the provision of quality
products, food safety, and production methods that pay greater attention to theenvironment and sustainability. This has led to the increasing use of Quality Assurance
schemes, which are beginning to specify not only worker health and safety requirements,
but also employment features (EUREPGAP, 2004). The implication of such schemes isthat failure to comply with the conditions required will not just result in a slap on thehand and a small fine, but possibly the loss of the whole sale and succeeding sales, andpotentially the farmer or grower investment. Such schemes are required to be audited byapproved independent auditors at the supplier’s expense, so a much more powerful
sanction hovers over the recalcitrant employer.
However, in the deregulatory era which swept the world from the mid 1980s, theemployment relations context also changed at the receiving end of the supply chain.
British ports had been traditional trade union strongholds for dock workers. In 1989 theThatcher led government passed legislation that was aimed at the privatization,
deregulation and de-unionization of most of Britain’s ports. It prohibited secondary
strikes, and was not repealed by the subsequent Labour administration. Allen has argued
that British dock owners, including the government itself, were adopting a global strategy
aimed:“…to employ workforces that would be fully utilized, low cost and available
on a ‘just-in-time’ or ‘as needed’ basis. They wanted to employ only
atomized workers who were isolated from each other, competed with eachother for work and could be called to the docks on short notice at theemployers’ discretion to load or unload a ship that was still on route” (Allen,
1997: 1).
Turnbull, Woolfson and Kelly (1992) described the consequent national dock strike as ahistoric defeat for labour, which could be best understood as a “process of classrestructuring in which the relations between labour and capital are transformed” (cited in
Arnold and Cooper, 1999: 137). The previous Dock Labour Scheme was, for right-wing
opponents, an inflexibility affecting the free functioning of the market, but for the‘political left’, it had provided security and protection against formerly capricious dockhiring practices for casual workers.

- 64 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
Supply Chain Concepts
The transformation of commodity chains into more integrated supply chains has led to achange in the way in which business is conducted between firms and countries. To gain
some understanding of these changes and their impact, it is necessary to explain the key
concepts relating to supply chains. First and foremost, supply chains are driven by the
final consumer and all chain participants align themselves in order to play their part increating value for the final consumer. A supply chain must not only create value for the
final consumer, but must do this better than competing supply chains.
The value creation process occurs right along the chain from input suppliers, producers,
processors and distributors, and each of these businesses can be considered asintermediate customers in this value creation process:“While driven by the ultimate consumer, chains are made up of many
intermediate customers, each of which must meet the needs of the customer
above them in the chain. When they do this, they create value for theircustomer, and in turn, they expect their suppliers to create value for them.
Thus, a value creation process occurs along the entire chain with the objectiveof meeting the needs of the final consumer.” (Martin and Jagadish, 2005: 3)
As noted by Martin and Jagadish (2005), each business along an agribusiness chain will
use their physical, natural, financial, and human resources, and their innovative
capability, to create value for their intermediate customer by transforming or enhancing
their inputs. Product transformation usually involves some kind of processing, while
product enhancement includes cleaning, grading, packaging or presentation. A businesscan also create value through the integration of its processes with those of its suppliersand customers. These processes will centre around purchasing and selling, logistics andproduct maintenance (or quality control).
Hence, supply chains create value through the operations of the businesses within the
chain and the integration of processes, such as logistics and quality control, between
businesses in the chain. This value creation is supported by information flows up anddown the chain and achieved through vertical integration of activities within key
businesses and/or the management of relationships between businesses. Relationshipmanagement is usually associated with changes of ownership of the product, and can takeforms along a continuum from open market transactions at one end to very close strategic
alliances or joint ventures at the other. Chains are usually controlled by one or morechain leaders, who match the needs of the market with the resources of the chain. In
doing this, they tend to set standards, manage chain-wide processes and facilitate
information flows along the chain (Martin and Jagadish, 2005).
From the above conceptualization of an agribusiness supply chain, Martin and Jagadish(2005) derive a set of performance standards for such chains. They claim that sustainable
competitive advantage in an agribusiness supply chain is obtained when it achieves
particular macro and micro level performance standards. At a macro level, they argue that

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 65 such performance requires: that a chain have a chain focus and be consumer driven(effective), that it be cost-efficient in its operation (efficient), that it does this better thancompeting supply chains (superior benchmark performance), and that it can continue todo this over time (chain stability). They also postulate a set of micro-level performance
criteria that focus on effective and efficient value creation along the chain, efficientlogistics and effective quality control, effective and efficient information transmission up
and down the chain, and the effective vertical integration of processes within key firms
and effective relationship management (Martin and Jagadish, 2005)
The authors then argue that chains may not perform well for a number of reasons. The
reasons are: the lack of a supply chain orientation, lack of chain resources, inadequate
information flows, and inadequate infrastructure to support logistics (Martin andJagadish, 2005). Employment relations issues can impact or interrelate with each of these
performance impediments. If different members of a chain behave opportunisticallytowards each other and are not working in unison to meet the consumer needs (lack of a
supply chain orientation), then the chain will not perform well. For example, an external
inspecting organization may be more concerned with its own internal staffing budget thanmaintaining good employment relations and the integrity of the chain. Likewise, lack ofchain resources could include the inspecting organization lacking appropriately qualified
staff such as veterinarians to facilitate optimal chain operation. Employment relations
concerns can derail the best organized businesses if their staff are taken for granted. The
likelihood of this happening will vary depending on the structural characteristics of thepoint in the chain where the sensitivity occurs (as discussed below). Similarly, inadequate
information flows up and down the chain can mean that important intermediary personnel
at some point of transshipment can break a ‘cool chain’ if they do not realize thesignificance of keeping the chain intact for maintaining produce condition. For example,
Nadi airport in Fiji used to be notorious for flowers in transit to the USA being left on the
runway unprotected in the tropical sun. Finally, inadequate roads, shipping or air links
can cause great difficulties, especially if a lot of transshipment between transport modes
is required. Each point of transshipment then becomes a point of vulnerability. These arealso points at which employment relations issues may come to a head.
Human Resource Management and the supply chain
There has been little research on how the movement to more managed supply chains has
impacted on participants’ human resource management (HRM) policies and employment
relations, or on the importance of these on the smooth management of these chains. For
example, there has been a failure to consider the employment relations implications ofpolices such as outsourcing, casualization, work intensification and their impact on
employer – union dynamics. There are both opportunities and threats to employers,
workers and trade unions operating in ‘integrated work settings’ (Lund and Wright, 2003:
102). The technical innovations in the chain have promoted productivity and customer
responsiveness, which have led to greater integration and consequently more crossenterprise interdependence, which is where the greater vulnerabilities may exist.
Significant literature had developed around three subjects:

- 66 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
1. The need for new HRM policies and practices to promote new employee skills
and behaviour.
2. How the adoption of ‘lean production’ strategies leads to intensified work effort
and increased managerial control over the labour process.
3. The human resource and other organizational implications of closer relations
between enterprises within supply chains. (Lund and Wright, 2003: 103)
In contrast, little attention had been given to the macro employment relations implicationsof ever ‘leaner’ production, where there were concerns about issues of cross-enterprise
integration, dependence and vulnerability to industrial disputes. These have implications
for the industrial bargaining power of strategically located groups of workers and theirtrade unions, which could shut down an entire supply chain causing industry wide havoc.
So strategic location within the distribution and transportation parts of the chain becomeseven more critical with increasing integration and the need for timely responses. The
most vulnerable points of the supply chain expose management’s greatest weaknesses.
Lund and Wright (2003) provide case studies of successful campaigns by the Teamsters
Union. In the Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) case, 1300 members were locked
out. Two months redundancy notice was given with the information that AWG wereplanning to contract out two distribution centres. The Teamsters did not call an illegal
strike and thus breach their labour agreement, but began a campaign of lobbying throughthe media, store drops of flyers asking buyers not to buy from stores that AWG supplied,picketed specific stores, ran an effective community campaign, and alleged that AWG
had not negotiated ‘in good faith’. The combined actions, some intermediate customer
defections and the ‘good faith’ threat led to a quick settlement with the third party
provider of logistics. The latter had good relations with the Teamsters and about half of
its US operations were unionized. The settlement recognized AWG’s right to outsource
its operations, but reduced such providers from four to one. Back pay was agreed forreinstated strikers, but AWG still achieved multi-million dollar savings. Clearly, the third
party logistics provider had a very good relationship with the Teamsters, which
reciprocated with positive views of their management. A win-win outcome wasachieved. Another case featured a similar win against Kroger Company, the second
largest grocery company in the USA. Wal-Mart, however, is a vigourous user of SCM
techniques and vehemently anti-union. While a target for union organization it has alower cost structure from its un-unionized labour force and is a competitive threat toother supermarket chains. Its low cost non-union operations may provide both stiffcompetition and a model for other employers to follow.
Overall, Lund and Wright conclude that effective union bargaining power will be definedby: the extent of unionization throughout the supply chain, how fragmented bargaining
structures are, the nature and shape of inter-union relations, and the degrees ofdemarcation. Employer responses are likely to include: union avoidance, outsourcing, orbuilding more co-operative relations with other unions (Lund and Wright, 2003: 112).

Technological change and the supply chain

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 67 -Recent technological changes have had a major impact on the management of supply
chains. Many of these innovative changes have been digitally based. These include
improved systems for product traceability utilizing individual product identification - forexample, using bar codes, or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (Tang, 2006) - toenable products to be located precisely on their journey from product to plate. Coupledwith the ability to record the precise conditions of storage throughout the journey ofindividual containers and their contents, the risks faced by producers and internationalcustomers, whether of imperfect transportation, or chemical or biological contamination
are radically reduced and can be precisely located if they occur. New software systems
permit obtaining greater efficiencies in loading cargo, whether in terms of the maximum
filling of hold space, or locating the cargo so it is relatively easy to retrieve when
destination ports are reached. Shipping itself has been undergoing significant changes
with containerization and container ships largely replacing the more traditional pallet
filled reefer vessels. Reefer ships have themselves undergone significant improvementswith pallet loading by lift, lateral cargo doors, no hatch covers and up to 70 percent ofhold space refrigerated (Barry Rogliano Salles, 2003). Such changes have had major
effects on port labour productivity, with a decline in the UK port labour force from80,000 in 1948 to less than 10,000 in 1988, when privatization began (Turnbull et al.,1999).
In the UK, new technology has also helped the radicalized dockworkers dismissed as aresult of privatization, who were not supported by their traditional union, the Transportand General Workers’ Union, or by the Trades Union Congress. They established a‘dispute’ website to highlight management manipulations and capitalist strategies. It
helped gain international support. For example, through it the Maritime Union ofAustralia learnt of events at the port of Liverpool, where the privatized employer, theMersey Docks and Harbour Company, dismissed and replaced striking dock workers.
Subsequently, the internet directly facilitated the globalization of the dockworkers’
conflict as it permitted dockworkers across the world to see the similarity of theirstruggles. January 29, 1997 was designated as a day of international action to back theLiverpool dockworkers. Dockworkers in 27 countries and in 105 ports staged actions ofsolidarity (Allen, 1997). However, their fight was in vain and a settlement was reachedeventually, with 70 percent of those dismissed receiving a financial settlement, whilemost of the remainder became unemployed in Liverpool’s oversupplied labour market.
By 1999, every port in Britain had become non-union as a result of the union breaking
activities begun back in 1989. The process of privatization had succeeded. The tradeunion movement (e.g. TGWU) never had any intention of supporting the strikers. The
strike had been ruled illegal and union involvement would have made union funds liable
to sequestration under the Thatcher legislation. The International Transport Worker’s
Federation (ITF) would not become involved with an illegal strike either (Bacon, 1999).
The formation of the International Dockworkers’ Council (IDC) in Tenerife in 2000
followed. It was seen as the creation of a rival organization by the ITF, which had beenfounded in London in 1886 (ILA Newsletter, Summer 2002). Inter-union rivalry is not a
new phenomenon, but the IDC has tried to occupy the more radical ground.

- 68 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
Subsequently, it claimed it had led the opposition to the draft European Union (EU) Port
Services Directive in 2003, by calling for international protest strikes against it (IDC, 17
November 2003). The international action was effective because when the Directive wasdebated by the European Parliament, it was rejected by 229 votes to 209 (IDC news, 20
November 2003). The ITF called it “A major step forward”, but the UK based shippers’
body, the Freight Transport Association (FTA) said it was a major mistake and:“…robbed ports of a vital opportunity to modernize and increase cargohandling efficiency with all of the productivity and competitive advantages
which would have flowed. The current restrictions on pilotage and handling
do not well serve the European supply chain.
(PortServicemag.com
13.03.03)
A similar piece of legislation promoted by the EU Commission was voted down by a
substantial majority (532 to 120, 25 abstentions) early in 2006. European ports accountfor 70 percent of the 25 country EU’s trade with other countries (“Strasbourg rejects billthat would de-regulate EU ports”, Bloomberg-Reuters, quoted in The Press, 20 January2004). That point takes the argument full circle to the key issue of where or whenemployment relations issues can interrupt supply chains.
Agribusiness Supply Chain Configuration
Each supply chain will have its own configuration, and its design will be driven by anumber of factors. One of these factors is the logistics of getting produce from the New
Zealand paddock to the European plate, as can be illustrated by this basic ‘chain’:producer/road/port/ship/port/road/rail/distribution-centre/road/supermarket. Dependingon the product, the nature of the supply contract, the nature of New Zealand foodregulations and the nature of the importing country’s quarantine and endpoint customer
requirements, this basic ‘chain’ may be more or less complicated by contractual or
regulatory terms and/or stages.
In Figure 1, the Apple supply chain from the New Zealand orchard to the English plate is
portrayed (Beeching, 2006; Russell, 2005). As has already been explained this chain has
continuously evolved. Orchard employment relations have rarely been the subject ofcollective employee action, with no union representing orchard workers. Recently,
employees unhappy with their pay or conditions have been able to resolve their problems
by moving to a more congenial employer because of the prolonged labour shortage thathorticulture has experienced (Tipples, 1995 and 2006).
Deregulation of the apple industry’s export procedures accelerated the move to containers
for which the specific environment can be individually controlled. Up to 1997, all apples
were exported in reefer ships, but by 2003 one third of exports were transported incontainers. By then, the Nelson and Napier service could reach Sheerness for Britain or
Antwerp for Europe in just 26 days (InforMARE, 2003). There are far more channels
than were initially expected, depending on the initial packing of the product and whether
or not it is put in storage when it gets to the UK.

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 69 Figure1: NZ Apple Supply Chain Diagram

At Sheerness, Worldwide Fruit (WWF) is the chain partner of Turners and Growers(Enza). WWF is a leader in fruit procurement, sourcing, marketing and category
management so it can supply the best ranges of ready to eat fruit in the UK (Worldwide
Fruit, 2006). Sheerness is a non Union Port as a result of the privatization policy andmanipulations of the Thatcher government (see Arnold and Cooper, 1999), so
employment relations problems are not a frequent issue. Medway Ports are now ownedby the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which introduces its currently flourishingbusiness with the following statement: “A commitment to excellent service, delivered byresponsible employees and always underpinned by a strong culture of health and safety –Medway Ports sets itself the highest standards…”. That is reinforced by a commitment tomeet the increasingly exacting standards of supermarkets for fresh fruit and vegetables,
for which they have obtained ISO 9001 2000 certification for accreditation (Medway
Ports, 2006).
Antwerp, on the other hand, has a very strong union influence. Costs tend to be pushed
up at non-standard times, e.g. weekends, and there have been strikes in the past at thisport. Worldwide Fruit itself has very little usage of Antwerp as most of its cargo comes- 70 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
via Sheerness or the principal container ports of Felixstowe or Tilbury. While the latterare union free, major problems flow for product sourced from France, Spain or Italy,
which has to pass through the Port of Calais. The latter is frequently ‘blockaded’,
whether by disgruntled fishermen, farmers, truck drivers, dockers or sailors. They haveinterrupted cross-Channel ferries and caused major truck and car traffic congestion in
Kent from the accumulation of vehicles awaiting ferries across the Channel (e.g. Latest
Ferry News, 2005).
Upon arrival at Sheerness Port, agriculture checks are undertaken by staff of the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), a UK Government
department. They take a sample for inspection to ensure consistency with EU Class
guidelines. WWF have to advise DEFRA of all imports into the UK (by maintaining a
web page for them), and DEFRA then advise which consignments (a container or specificparcel of fruit) they wish to inspect. All such inspections are effectively quarantined until
cleared for further distribution by DEFRA. Any contraventions have to be rectified in abonded location and re-inspected before they can be released, and all costs are attributed
to the importer’s account. In 2005, the cost of DEFRA inspections equated to about £4
per container, or £0.20 per pallet over the entire crop.
After unloading, cargoes go in a variety of directions. WWF often feed to production
units (to convert to Supermarket packs) or to long term controlled atmosphere (CA)stores. From these points, WWF deliver on a daily order basis to retailer distribution
centres, which then feed the individual stores. Road transport is always an issue in theUK, with overcrowded roads and ever increasing fuel costs. Retailer distribution centres
are in the main unionised. The centres are owned (or leased) by the retailers, and either
directly run by themselves or run by specialist logistical subcontractors (eg Hays /Wincanton / Christian Salveson / Tibbett and Britten ). There is regularly discussion in
the trade press about possible union action as a result of changes in such factors asworking conditions. The most vulnerable points for WWF are, in their opinion, thesupermarket depots as interruptions could have severe implications on sales rates andlong term quality. Once fruit has cleared the ports it is effectively under WWF control,
and the facilities WWF use are privately owned by members of the WWF group and so
there is little impact there. There is always the remote possibility of a port blockade or
fuel strike which could impact WWF severely; although, in terms of containers, WWF dohave the option of changing destinations. For example, WWF could land containers in
Antwerp, if required, and then bring fruit back from Europe.
Quality Assurance (QA) procedures do not just take place as apples are grown, picked
and packed from the orchard, but at all stages through to the ultimate point of sale inEngland. Taking New Zealand as the starting point, there will be an element of QA
before packing in order to ascertain whether the raw material meets specification for the
specific customer or Enza grade standards. It will then be quality controlled online, andagain before being shipped to a market. Agriquality New Zealand will invariably act as
the final arbiter at this point. Once fruit reaches the UK port, WWF will take a sample
upon arrival in Sheerness, and a further one before putting into store or re-packing. This
is to ensure that the fruit WWF is putting before the packers is in the correct specification

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 71 for the retail customer they are packing for. Fruit will also be quality assured at any point
prior to delivery to the supermarket depot (eg ex Sheerness, ex UK Storage, ex Packer).
Finally, the supermarkets themselves will do an intake QA to ensure that WWF havedone their job and fruit meets their specific requirements. It is a fairly complex process
and WWF perform the extra checks in order to minimise on costs of additional transport
and the issues surrounding supermarket rejections (which can lead to loss of business).
Employment Relations Critical Control Points (ERCCP)
Food quality assurance programmes often have to meet HACCP standards (Food Act
1996). HACCP stands for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points and are used to
identify points of maximum risk for producers, suppliers and retailers. Inventing a similarphrase to describe hazardous high risk points for employers in the agri-food supply chain
may be useful, when appropriately illustrated, to highlight what Lund and Wright (2003)
have described as an un-researched topic. Therefore, the phrase Employment Relations
Critical Control Points (ERCCP) is coined to draw attention to areas which should be
attended to by supply chain intermediate and final customers to avoid or control high risk
employment relations events.
New Zealand farmers and growers have long been aware of their vulnerability to
disruption of sea transport to ultimate markets. Today those pressures are more acutebecause a more perishable range of produce has to be transported more quickly. There isnothing to suggest that their dislike of dock workers has diminished with the passage oftime. The changed employment relations legislation in New Zealand has probably
strengthened their position:“On the New Zealand waterfront, the ERA has enabled new unions toemerge, as representatives of employees working for companies that havebeen at the forefront of efforts to casualize and de-unionize
employment….vehemently anti-union employers seeking the legitimacy of
employing unionized workers, so as to challenge further an establishedunion.” (Barry and Reveley, 2001: 15)
The so-called Mainland Stevedoring/Carter Holt dispute of 2001 fits this pattern exactly(McAndrew, 2001: Software Associates, 2006). A new stevedoring firm, based in Mount
Mauganui in the North Island, started to shift its ‘casual’ staff around South Island ports
to help load logs ‘more efficiently’. This sparked major confrontations in the South Island
ports which caused considerable media interest (Rasmussen and Ross, 2004)
While quieter than formerly, the wharf has not ceased to be a contentious area,
particularly at contract renewal time, when there have been a series of heated disputes.
One, at Lyttelton, led to only the second death in an industrial dispute in one hundredyears of New Zealand’s employment history. Most recently, there has been ongoing
industrial action in support of negotiations for a new collective agreement where the
Lyttelton Port Company has only settled after staunchly resisting for nearly two years(NZJER, 30(2): 89).

- 72 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin

Besides the direct confrontations between members of the supply chain and theiremployees, there are those more indirect disputes which can disrupt the chain and overwhich the parties involved in the chain have no direct control. Three recent examples areof the dispute of the MAF/Asure New Zealand meat inspection veterinarians in 2001,
which lasted one week and resulted in about 9,000 meat workers being stood down
(NZJIR, 26(2): 243), while contract renegotiation difficulties were resolved. The secondin 2002 concerned Customs Officers also seeking collective agreement renewal. This wascomplicated by a restructuring of pay rates so that base wage rates were lifted but
allowances and overtime payments cut back, and by there being three unions involved:
The Customs Officers Association, the Public Service Association, and the National
Union of Public Employees (NZJIR, 27(3): 367). The third is the 2005 dispute between
MAF and its Quarantine Service staff affecting Biosecurity. This had a much less direct
linkage but if an exotic disease were to enter New Zealand during such a dispute thepotential impact across the agricultural sector would be huge from lost overseas sales. As
Federated Farmers described them, they are the country’s ‘Gatekeepers’ and to have nofront line of protection was worrying. The employers did not propose lowering any
standards, just delays to cargoes and passengers (NZ Herald, 24 November 2005). In twoof the cases, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was either the employer directly orthe ‘owner’ of the contracting State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). It was confronted by thecompeting claims of employees and the state (as the central government’s wages policy
limits the Ministry’s budget flexibility).
While third party employment relations disputes have periodically disrupted supply
chains from New Zealand, they have not been, for at least the last fifteen years, a problem
at the British end. Weather factors such as high winds or rain, and computer problems at
DEFRA have been far more disruptive. For example, in 2005, when high winds
prevented docking at Felixstowe, containers were unloaded at Rotterdam, and then fed
back to Britain a week later (Beeching, 2006).
Managing Vulnerability
Based on the New Zealand apple case study, the most serious employment relations
critical control points were: in highly unionized sites such as the Port of Antwerp, anypart of the chain subject to collective employment negotiations in third party
organizations which have to grant permissions for produce to pass from one chain
member to the next (such as MAF, AgriQuality and Customs for New Zealand), and sites
where the state of inter-union relations is poor. To these may be added any points oftransshipment, for example where ‘cool chain’ integrity is compromised; or any points
where there are issues of demarcation, whether current, latent or potential. Disruptions
may not only lead to losing sales but, in a worst case scenario, for companies losing thechance to do any further business with the affected endpoint customers.
Managers can carry out risk identification processes to identify where they may be mostvulnerable to chain disruption. As unions, and their members, are one of the groups
which may be affected by such disruptions to a supply chain, employers may then have aGetting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 73 proactive relationship with their unions to ensure their members are not adversely
affected by other disputes outside of their control. In effect a win-win outcome is aimed
for and should be achieved (Gilbert and Gips, 2000; Sheffi, 2003). They should concern
themselves to identify where they would be most inclined to focus to maximize theirnegotiating power. Where high risks are then identified they have to decide whether toavoid the problem by going round it, perhaps by a less convenient route with possible
adverse side effects, or whether they can afford to wait for it to be resolved; or whether
they decide to confront it. Direct confrontation was clearly the dominant policy in the
1980s and 1990s, with the result that many parts of the supply chain are now free ofunions and operate with a fraction of the staff they did before. That is clearly not an
acceptable policy in Continental Europe and probably less feasible in New Zealand under
the Employment Relations Act. So it is likely that more cooperative rather than conflictbased solutions must be found, one of which may be avoidance.
Acknowledgements
This paper was only possible with of the great help of Andy Beeching and Andrew
Russell of Worldwide Fruit for which we thank them. Professor Chris Kissling, Professorof Transport Studies, Lincoln University, made helpful suggestions on this topic, and readand commented on an early draft of our paper. His contribution is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Allen, B. (1997), Liverpool Dockers and the Globalization of Class Struggle, found at
http://www.labournet.net/docks2/9708/canliv1.htm .
Arnold, P. J. and Christine C. (1999), A tale of two classes: The privatization of the Medway
Ports, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, 127-152.
Available from:http://www.idealibrary.com
Bacon, D. (1999), Liverpool dockers, Labour Activism. Found at: www.zmag.org/zmag/articles
Barry, M. and Reveley, J. (2001), Contradictory Rights and Unintended Consequences: The
Early Impact of the Employment Relations act on the New Zealand Waterfront. Industrial
Relations Centre, Victoria University of Wellington: Working Paper 1/01.
Salles, B.R. (2003), The Reefer Market in 2002, Forum of Shipping and Logistics, Informare.
Found at http://www.informare.it/news/forum/2003/brs/reefer-auk.asp
Beeching, A. (2006), Worldwide Fruit. Various personal communications.

- 74 - Rupert Tipples and Sandra Martin
Boehlje, M. (1999). Structural Changes in the Agricultural Industries: How Do We Measure,
Analyse and Understand Them? American Journal of Agricultural Economics (5): 1028-41.
Encyclopedia of New Zealand (2005), What’s
http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealandInBrief/Economy/5/en .

thestory?.

Foundat

EUREPGAP (2004), Control Points and Compliance Criteria – Integrated Farm Assurance. All
farms base module – Staff, pp. 1-4. Found at: http://www.eurep.org
Gilbert, G.A. and Gips, M.A. (2000), Supply-Side Contingency Planning. March.
Found at: http://www.securritymanagement.com/library/000937.html
Green, A. (2001), British Capital, Antipodean Labour – Working the New Zealand Waterfront
1915-1951. Dunedin, University of Otago Press.
InforMARE (2003), The Reefership Market in 2002, p.2.
Found at: http://www.informare.it/news/forum/2003/brs/reefer-Auk.asp
International
Dockworkers
Council(2003)
News.
Found
www.redacom.idcdockworkers.org/noticia.asp and www.labournet/docks2/0311/idc2 .
International Longshoremen’s Association (2002), Newsletter.
http://www.ilaunion.org/news/nl_sum02_page06.asp

Summer.

at:

Found at:

Latest Ferry News (2005), Found at:
http://www.directferries.co.uk/news/2005december.htm

Le Heron, R. (2005), Reconstituting New Zealand’s agri-food chains for international
competition. In Fold, N. and Pritchard, B. (eds.), Cross-continental Food Chains. No. 12,
Routledge Studies in Human Geography. London, Routledge, chapter 4.
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (1999), Defining supply chain management: a historicalperspective and practical guidelines, Industrial Management + Data Systems. 99(l): 11-20.
Lund, J. and Wright, C. (2003), Integrating the supply chain: industrial relations implications in
US grocery distribution, New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(2): 101-114.
Martin, S. K. (1986), Economic Aspects of Market Segmentation without Supply Control. PhD
Thesis, University of Canterbury (Lincoln College), New Zealand.
Martin, S. (2004), The Fortex Story. Wellington, Dunmore Press.
Martin, Sandra and Jagadish, A. (2005), Agribusiness Supply Chain Management Concepts.
Discussion/Workshop Document, CARD Program, College of Economics, University of Hue,
Vietnam.
McAndrew, I. (2001), The 2001 South Island Ports Dispute: Why it happened and what it means.
Found at: http://mh2001.murdoch.edu.au/links/submissions/McAndrew.html
Medway Ports (2006). Found at http://www.medwayports.com/new/overview.htm

Getting Produce from the New Zealand Paddock to the European Plate - 75 -Rasmussen, E. and Ross, C. (2004), The Employment Relations Act through the eyes of themedia. In Rasmussen, E. (ed.), Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations
Act. Auckland, Auckland University Press, pp. 21-38.
Russell, A. (2005), Worldwide Fruit. Personal communication.
Saxowsky, D.M. and Duncan, M.R. (1998), Understanding Agriculture’s Transition into the 21stCentury – Challenges, Opportunities, Consequences and Alternatives. Department of Agricultural
Economics, North Dakota State University, North Dakota.
Sheffi, Y. (2003), Supply chain disruption management. Ipswich, UK. 20 June. Found at:
SHEFFI@MIT.EDU
Software Associates (2006), Innovation Technology - Software Creates Fracas on Wharves.
Found at: http://www.software-associates.co.nz/html/News.htm
Tang, Q. (2006), The application and diffusion of RFID technology in New Zealand businesses
from a supply chain perspective. M. Appl. Sc (Trans) Dissertation, Lincoln University.
Tipples, R. (1987), Labour Relations in New Zealand Agriculture, Sociologia Ruralis, XXVII(1):38-54.
Tipples, R. (1995), The re-regulation of farming employment relations in New Zealand,Sociologia Ruralis, XXXV(1): 93-109.
Tipples, R. (2006), The further re-regulation of farming employment relations in New Zealand,Sociologia Ruralis, in press.
Turnbull, P., Woolfson, C. and Kelly, J. (1992), Dock Strike: Conflict and Restructuring in
Britain’s Ports. Aldershot, UK, Avebury.
Worldwide Fruit (2006). Found at : http://worldwidefruit.co.uk/index.cfm
Yearbook (2004), New Zealand Official Yearbook 2004. Wellington, Statistics NZ.

- 76 - Chronicle
October 2005
Air New Zealand announced its intention to outsource its engine maintenanceoverseas with the loss of about 600 engineering jobs. Air New Zealand expected tosave up to $100 million through outsourcing parts of its engine maintenance but the
proposal was condemned by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. In areaction to the proposed redundancies, the Sunday Star Times reported that the RoyalNew Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) could give work to Air New Zealand mechanics
who were set to loose their jobs. The RNZAF had been hiring staff from Britain after
a Royal Air Force restructure and it aimed to recruit 200 skilled ex-RAF staff in thenext two years.
The 5% pay rise campaign by the Engineers Printers and Manufacturers Union(EPMU) continued (see July Chronicle). Pay negotiations at Southward Engineeringin Lower Hutt resulted in 30 employees being suspended. Staff employed at thefirm’s Lower Hutt and Auckland plants had rejected a pay offer of 4.25% from theiremployer. The EPMU had filed an application in the Employment Court to have thesuspensions ruled unlawful.
The proposed changes to Australia’s employment relations legislation received
prominent media coverage. The Dominion Post highlighted a claim by unions thatwomen’s pay and workplace bargaining power in Australia would be reduced under
the proposals because women were more reliant on award-determined pay andworking conditions. It was also estimated that up to 33% of all Australian female
employees were in casual employment. However, the NZ Herald reported that thechanges would produce additional jobs and higher wages. Australian Prime Minister
John Howard claimed that the legislative changes - the ‘Work Choices’ programme would protect basic conditions for workers and, at the same time, give more scope forbusinesses to negotiate with staff over how they organised and paid for things likeholiday work, bonuses and overtime.
The latest survey of trade union membership by the Industrial Relations Centre at
Victoria University showed a 17% increase in membership numbers since 1999,
although the overall percentage of the workforce belonging to unions – union density- remained static. Union density had remained between 21% and 22% since 1998 andit was now 21.1%. The static union density levels showed that the rising union
membership had only just kept up with the growing job market.
In connection with the release of union membership figures, it was reported in the
Dominion Post that Sharon Burrows, Head of the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions as well as the Australian Council of Trade Unions, had suggested that
New Zealand’s union movement and the current employment laws were a model for
employment relations and the envy of Australian unions. Ms Burrows was speaking
on the first day of biennial conference of the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) in
Wellington. Ms Burrow told delegates that with a 17% per cent boost in membershipin 2004 and a strong campaign for better wages in full swing, union successes in New
Zealand were “a beacon for Australian workers”.
Further restructuring of the union movement took place when a national union for
meatworkers was established. Members of the Meat Union Aotearoa voted to abolishChronicle - 77 the union and merge it with the Christchurch-based New Zealand Meatworkers’
Union. The new national union was expected to have around 22,000 members at thepeak of the slaughter season.
The Christchurch City Council announced its decision to appeal an Employment
Court decision which had criticised its handling of a long-running industrial disputewith its staff (see September Chronicle). The Council and employers groups believed
the decision would impose a blanket ban on any employer-staff communications
during the bargaining process.
In Invercargill, nurses and caregivers employed by Presbyterian Support (PSS) andbelonging to the Nurses Organisation and Service and Food Workers Union went on
strike in support of their wage claim. It was predicted that the strike action would
escalate and affect Presbyterian Support rest homes and hospitals in Southland, Otago
and South Canterbury.
The NZ Herald reported the bizarre case of a personal assistant who had scammed astring of blue chip companies and then faked her own death when she was close tobeing caught. The employee’s ‘suicide’ was reported by a family member andoccurred after she thought her employer had found out about her using inappropriately
a company credit card. Staff at the firm had been offered counselling and the firm had
also set up a trust account for the employee’s sons, organised a service and planted atree in her memory. However, then the employee was found out and she faced
charges of fraud in the Waitakere District Court.
The Corrections Department dismissed probation officer Josie Bullock for speaking
out against its cultural sensitivity practices (see September Chronicle). She was foundguilty of serious misconduct after repeatedly breaching the Department’s Code of
Conduct by speaking to the media without authorisation.
A long serving Air New Zealand employee lost his bid for reinstatement before the
Employment Relations Authority. The employee, who had 31 years service, wasdismissed for taking two magazines. Although the Authority ruled that the dismissal
might appear to be “brutal and harsh”, the employee’s actions had posed a “very real
threat” to Air New Zealand’s business relationships.
There were several media reports of findings that over the past year nearly one in five
workers, who had been tested for drugs after workplace accidents, had returned
positive results. Testing of staff for drug use had doubled compared with two years
ago, and there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of companies signing up
for the service conducted by Environmental Science and Research (ESR). Thoughcannabis remained the most common drug, making up 73 per cent of all positive tests,
amphetamine use was increasing. ESR carried out 24,000 workplace drug tests
during the last financial year, most of which were pre-employment screening tests.
Drug use also featured when a former Vodafone call centre worker lost his claim at
the Employment Relations Authority for lost pay and hurt feelings. The Vodafone
employee had been dismissed for using methamphetamine during work time. The
employee bought the drug from a fellow employee and used it in the call centre toilet
area during a work break.

- 78 - Chronicle

A sudden widening of the gender pay gap could constitute a dangerous trend with farreaching effects on individuals and families, according to newspaper reports. The
latest figures from Statistics NZ showed that pay for full-time employed men hadrisen about 6.3% since the June 2004 quarter, compared with a 3.2% rise for women.
Women were now earning an average 82% of men’s earnings, compared with 86% in
2004. Council of Trade Unions’ Vice-President Helen Kelly claimed that the gap waspartly a result of women not being recognised for their skills.
According to the Independent, a report produced by the international organisation
OECD showed that people were living longer but retiring earlier and, therefore, they
were spending much longer in retirement. By 2040, one in four people will be over
65 but with fewer working people paying tax to support those receiving
superannuation. The OECD warned that unless member countries adapted theiremployment policies to the new demographic realities they would face shrinking
workforces and declining prosperity. The OECD also stressed that older people
offered tremendous potential value to businesses, the economy and to society.
However, older people often represented an untapped and discriminated-against
employment resource because many public policy measures and private workplace
practices impeded older workers from continuing in employment.
The Dominion Post reported that the Fire Service had started to limit its granting of
retirement gratuities. A firefighter was refused a payout after resigning and starting
another job three days later. The Professional Firefighters Union contested thecrackdown on the gratuity, which was payable on retirement or death, as firefighters
were expected to loose out on about $1.5 million.
Meanwhile, the incident of gang activity in Auckland had an employment connection
with the NZ Herald claiming that many of the youths involved in gangs were fromfamilies on the lowest incomes who lived below the poverty line. Many had grown
up in families where no one had a full-time job or where employment consisted of
low-paid, part-time or casual full-time work. However, the problem could also be thetotal opposite situation. Instead of unemployment, the problem was in many cases
over-employment and the associated issue of parental supervision: several adultfamily members worked long hours in a series of part-time, low-paid jobs in order tobring in enough income to keep the family going.

November 2005
Despite protests in more than 300 cities and towns, the Australian Federal
Government’s new employment relations law appeared likely to be enacted.
Demonstrations organised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)
attracted an estimated 175,000 people in Melbourne alone. The legislation was passedby the House of Representatives and was likely to be approved by the Senate.
The NZ Fire Service Commission was given leave to appeal to the Court Appeal overthe Employment Court decision to grant additional leave to staff rostered to work on
Public Holidays (see August Chronicle). The case was expected to set a precedent forChronicle - 79 how other 24-hour services would meet the requirement to give workers a day off ifthey worked on a public holiday.
In another challenge to the application of the Holidays Act 2003, the New Zealand
Meatworkers’ Union took a case to the Employment Court against the Alliance GroupLtd for the way it paid sick and bereavement leave to seasonal employees who work
consecutive seasons. The union claim against the Alliance Group was regarded as atest case and could have ramifications in the wider meat industry and beyond.
In a high profile employment dispute that quickly became a political issue, Close Up
presenter Susan Wood won her fight to retain her $450,000 salary package when the
Employment Relations Authority upheld her position and criticised TVNZ for ‘sloppy
employment practices’ after it tried to reduce her salary by $100,000. However, it
was suggested in the Press that despite her victory her ‘air-brushed public image’ wasdamaged as a result of the publicity and the bitterness of her relationship with TVNZ
made it impossible for her to represent her employer in any high profile role.
The Southland Times reported that Environment Southland won an Employment
Court case against the Public Service Association (PSA) that could have national
implications. The appeal from the Public Service Association (PSA) was against an
Employment Relations Authority ruling over whether an employer should be required
to disclose the details of a new employee to a union without that employee’s consent.
The Authority had decided that the collective agreement was in breach of a statuterequiring consent from the employee and of principles of the Privacy Act. The
Council of Trade Unions claimed the decision would have detrimental implications
for other unions.
Kindergarten teachers held nationwide stop-work meetings to protest against pay andwork conditions. Kindergarten teachers were concerned about government plans thatwould force them to spend up to 35 hours a week in class. It was claimed that thiswas much higher than the maximum contact time allowed for primary school teachers
and would contribute to stress among kindergarten teachers. Currently, primaryteachers had a maximum contact time of 25 hours a week.
A Wellington Free Ambulance 111 supervisor, who fell asleep while on duty, wasordered to pay $2,000 in costs after she unsuccessfully claimed unjustified dismissal
before the Employment Relations Authority. Her lawyer, Rob Moodie, said that an
appeal against the Authority’s decision had been lodged with the Employment Court
and that the order for costs would stand only if the appeal failed.
A long serving employee, who stole eight jars of jam which he thought would bethrown away, was dismissed after 18 unblemished years of service. The Employment
Relations Authority found that the employer, Toll New Zealand, had dismissed
justifiably a freight handler at its Hastings branch, after a crackdown on thefts. The
company had issued memos to staff warning about the incidence of theft, installedsurveillance cameras and hired private investigators. The worker admitted taking thejam but he told the Authority that the jam had been from a damaged consignment anddestined for the rubbish. However, the Authority accepted the employer’s view thattaking any customer’s goods, damaged or not, was expressly forbidden and thatdishonesty could destroy the trust between an employer and worker.

- 80 - Chronicle

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) claimed in the Court of Appeal that two of its
workers should not have been able to plead ignorance of confidentiality obligations tokeep their jobs after they accessed family members’ tax files (see January Chronicle).
Inland Revenue had made an effort to inform staff of the rules, but in its decision the
Employment Court had not considered whether staff were responsible for learningthem. The women’s lawyer said the women accepted that they had broken the rules
but they had not realised the significance of changes made to confidentiality
obligations. Therefore, they were guilty of misconduct, but not of serious misconduct
and they did not deserve dismissal. The Court of Appeal reserved its decision.
Flexible working hours were a priority for many workers, especially mothers
returning to the workforce, according to a survey reported in the Press. The survey ofnearly 4,500 people by the Equal Employment Opportunity Trust found thatregardless of gender, age or ethnicity, parents wanted to have flexible starting andfinishing hours that allowed them to combine family and work commitments. Morethan 1000 men completed the survey, and the Trust’s Chief Executive Dr Philippa
Reed said they also valued flexibility. The survey also revealed that affordable, goodquality, convenient childcare was “very important” to 68% of respondents. One of themost frequent responses people gave for changing their job after their parental leave
was that they needed flexible or part-time hours.
Another report in the Dominion Post focussed on the ongoing problems that skilledmigrants had in getting their qualifications recognised in New Zealand. For example,
one immigrant claimed that New Zealand did not seem to want him, despite his
qualifications and more than 10 years of experience as a plumber.
Both the Independent and the Press reported that pay packets were burgeoning andemployment was surging, especially in the state sector. Salary and wage rates(including overtime), as measured by the Labour Cost Index (LCI), rose by 1% in the
September quarter and by 3.1% in the year to September. These were the biggest
quarterly and annual increases since the series began in the December 1992 quarter. In
the public sector, pay rates rose by 1.5% during the quarter and by 3.6% annuallywhile in the private sector, pay rates grew by 0.8% in the quarter and 2.8% annually.
Similarly, large growth in earnings showed up in the Quarterly Employment Survey(QES). Average total hourly earnings rose by 0.9% in the September quarter(following a 2% increase in the June quarter) and the annual rise was 4.2% to a total
average hourly earnings of $21.17.
All the major daily papers reported a record low unemployment rate and New Zealandcontinued to have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. The Household
Labour Force Survey conducted by Statistics New Zealand found that the
unemployment rate fell to 3.4% in the September quarter, down from 3.6% in theprevious three months. As the economy generated 26,000 new jobs, the number ofpeople in employment rose 1.3% during the quarter to a total of 2.09 million people.
Another survey reported by the Dominion Post said that employers were becoming
more cautious about hiring staff but many employers still intended to take on new
employees in the next six months. The Hudson Report (Employment Expectations),
which surveyed 2261 employers, revealed a fall in the number of employers intendingChronicle - 81 to hire new staff, compared to the same survey six months ago. A net 36.6% of
employers expected to hire more staff from January to June 2006. This was thelowest net percentage in two years, and also 6.9% lower than the net 43.5% six
months ago.
The resignation of Child Youth and Family’s Chief Executive Paula Tyler createdanother employment controversy in the public sector. It was revealed that the Chief
Executive had been paid nearly $70,000 to move from Canada to New Zealand and,after less than 18 months in the job, she decided to return to Canada. Deputy Leaderof the National Party Gerry Brownlee said that the amount was excessive and thatchief executives recruited from overseas should be forced to repay relocation costs ifthey quit their job before serving the full term of their contract. A week later, State
Services Commissioner Mark Prebble announced that new rules would apply in the
future: public service senior managers recruited from overseas would have to repay
some of their relocation expenses if they decided to leave before their term wascompleted.
According to a survey published in the NZ Herald, 25% of private sector employees
and 31% of public sector employees thought that their employers were too tolerant ofpoor performers. The research, conducted between July and September 2004, foundorganisations with employees who think their employers are too tolerant of poor
performers have lower mean revenue growth, higher staff turnover and lower staff
morale than organisations perceived to be adequately addressing the issue. The
survey also revealed that employers perceived as being particularly tolerant of poor
performance were disproportionately represented in local government, health,education and retail sectors.
December 2005
The continuation of Air New Zealand’s plan to outsource its engineering services was
the major industrial issue featuring in the media. A legal challenge in the
Employment Relations Authority by the unions was labelled by Air New Zealand as a“delaying tactic”. However, the unions claimed they had evidence to support theirclaim that the airline was not negotiating in good faith. In their attempt to salvage as
many jobs as they could, the unions employed corporate advisers Ferrier Hodgson todevelop and present an alternative plan. Air New Zealand responded that for any
proposal to be viable it would have to include “significant labour reforms” in the
Auckland and Christchurch operations. The airline also said that it would consider
saving some of the threatened 617 jobs in return for across-the-board concessions
from the rest of the business’ 2,100 workers.
There was a increase in industrial action in the period leading up to the Christmas
break. The Press reported that Canterbury mental health nurses, dental therapists andsocial workers were among 500 health staff threatening a three-day strike in the week
before Christmas. In another part of the health sector, the Manawatu Standard
reported that about 200 ambulance officers in the Midland and Central regions of theNorth Island refused to do paperwork as part of their industrial action in support of
double-crewing and pay parity. Finally, negotiations were continuing between the
New Zealand Nurses’ Organisation and more than 500 primary health employers

- 82 - Chronicle(covering mostly nurses in GP surgeries). The nurses were seeking parity with district
health board counterparts who had already received large pay rises.
Westpac employees took industrial action in support of their contract negotiations
with about 1,700 union members joining in strike action in the days leading up to
Christmas.
Nationwide, around 1,650 Kindergarten teachers went on strike as a protest against
their employer’s plan to increase the hours of contact time from 22 hours to a
maximum of 35 per week and to have shortened term breaks. The employers claimed
that the proposed changes were in response to changing needs for kindergarten
education and the call by parents for longer opening hours and term periods.
Paid parental leave was expected to be extended to the self-employed from 1 July
2006. A Bill extending paid parental leave was introduced to Parliament and was sent
to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee for submissions. The
Government estimated that over 2,000 self-employed people, out of the total 200,000
self-employed people, would apply for paid parental leave if the Bill was passed.
A long running personal grievance issue that had featured prominently in the media
came to a close in December (see November Chronicle). The Court of Appeal
overturned an earlier Employment Court decision, which had ordered the Inland
Revenue Department (IRD) to reinstate two employees who had been dismissed foraccessing tax records of family members. The Court of Appeal found that theemployees had been fairly dismissed.
TVNZ was again the focus of media attention when a personal grievance was brought
by a former employee. In this case, the Dominion Post speculated that news editor
Melanie Jones was awarded over $200,000 in compensation for wrongful dismissal.
TVNZ’s Head of News Bill Ralston issued a statement where he stated that he deeply
regretted any distress caused to Ms Jones following her “termination and departure”
from the broadcaster.
In a NZ Herald feature article on call centres, researcher Vivienne Hunt presented adifferent view of employment in call centres. Ms Hunt, a lecturer in management andemployment relations at the University of Auckland, stated that “most of the researchon call centres finds them a stressful form of employment with workers operating
under tightly controlled regimes while delivering customer service via the telephone,often on a 24-hour basis”. A consequence of this was that many call centres had highstaff turnover and limited career paths. However, her research on New Zealand callcentres suggested that a different story was emerging. She found that many women
benefited from the call centre work experience by being able to balance their workand life commitments. New Zealand call centre employers were adopting family
friendly practices to attract and retain their predominantly female workforce, due tojob growth and skill shortages. In the process, call centres were helping their female
staff achieve a work-life balance and were enabling women to develop new career
paths.
The Sunday Star Times reported on a University of Auckland study, which found that
union membership had increased 3.6% during 2004, a net increase of 12,427

Chronicle - 83 members. Overall, 21.1% of wage and salary earners belonged to unions in 2004. The
survey also found that ‘aging’ of union members was major factor, because workers
under 29 were less likely to be in a union than workers over 30. Before theintroduction of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991, union density among young
people was higher than among their older counterparts. Immediately after 1991, theunion density of young people declined at a faster rate than that of older people andsince the introduction of the Employment Relations Act in 2000, the gap between thenumbers of young and older union members had continued to widen.
The Press reported on the growing phenomenon of bullying in the workplace. The
report noted that serial bullies were forcing workers to resign and cause additionalcosts to their employer such as worker morale and legal bills. According to recent
comments from the Employment Relations Authority, the number of employment
cases involving allegations of bullying appeared to be on the rise. Anti-bullying
group Wave (Workplaces Against Violence in Employment) stated that bullying was
likely to cost New Zealand businesses millions of dollars every year fromabsenteeism, staff turnover and reduced staff performance.

January 2006
Again, the outsourcing plan by Air New Zealand received wide media coverage (seeDecember Chronicle). By the end of January, a decision had still not been made but
the Press reported that Air New Zealand’s restructuring plans had become clearer toits engineering workers and the employees had received letters advising them ofwhich posts were likely to be cut. However, the unions claimed to have found$38million of the savings required. The cost savings included reduced overtime andmore flexible shifts to better coincide with demand.
The year started with gloomy predictions about the state of the economy and the flowon effect this would have for employment. The Press reported on predictions which
expected a technical recession (two quarters of negative economic growth). A survey
in the NBR found that a net 12% of respondents believed jobs would be harder to getin a year’s time, a level in line with the slowing pace of economic growth. Still,
employees remained optimistic about their future earnings, with a net 40% saying
they expected to be earning more. But the net positive response to current job
availability slipped from 53% in September to 49%. Only a net 15% of employees
thought their jobs would be more secure, half that of a year ago. Another reportpublished in the Dominion Post found that manufacturing job losses were inevitable,
unless business activity picked up from its record low in December. The ANZBusiness New Zealand performance of manufacturing index recorded its lowest result
since the survey began in 2002. The high New Zealand dollar remained the prime
issue for manufacturers in most sectors.
A number of layoffs occurred during January. Jack Links New Zealand, a Mangere
based beef jerky manufacturer laid off 100 workers. The company blamed the high
New Zealand dollar for the loss of a major United States customer. Many of theemployees laid off were former long-term unemployed who had received training
organised through Work and Income. The Press reported other redundancies andlayoffs, including 112 employees at Rotorua wood-products manufacturer PanaHome,- 84 - Chronicle
75 workers at G. L. Bowron a Christchurch sheepskin tannery and 19 jobs at
Renaissance Furniture in Christchurch. Auckland wheelmaker Ion Automotive went
ahead with plans announced in 2005 and 460 employees were made redundant.
In a high profile example of workplace bullying (see December 2005 Chronicle), The
Warehouse dismissed a manager after four staff resigned because they had beenbullied and humiliated by her. The staff claimed that the manager used stand-overtactics and publicly reprimanded them, was overbearing, rude, derogatory andintimidating. Subsequently, the Employment Relations Authority rejected a personal
grievance claim from the manager.
A Department of Labour survey carried out in 2005 found that only 45% ofprofessional job vacancies advertised were filled. This result was down from 70% in
2003. A “fill” rate of less than 80% was normally considered to constitute skill
shortage. The survey found a similar drop in the fill rate for advertised jobs fortechnicians and associate professionals, which fell from 71% in 2003 to 42% in 2005.
The survey defined the fill rate as the proportion of vacancies that were filled with anadequately qualified and experienced person within six to eight weeks of advertising
for trade workers and eight to ten weeks for professionals and technicians andassociate professionals. The most chronic shortages were among psychiatric nurses
and structural engineers, with fill rates in 2005 being 13% and 18% respectively.
In a continuation of the shortage of workers in the horticulture industry, the Nelson
Mail reported that many of the best pickers were choosing jobs in Australia overseasonal jobs at home because they feared the upcoming Nelson harvest might not beworth undertaking. Cheap air fares, better pay rates and the Commonwealth Gamesplanned for Melbourne in March were all factors in making Australia an attractive
work destination.
Hundreds of drivers faced an uncertain future when a new law took effect in January.
The law prevented people with sexual, murder or serious violent convictions fromdriving buses or taxis. A number of employees, who had relatively minor
convictions, were stood down pending a legislative amendment that would exempt
them.
The Press reported that over half of Christchurch’s adult Muslim migrants were
unemployed and this constituted the worst rate in New Zealand. Well over half of the
3,000 Muslims in Christchurch could not find jobs. This was despite many adults
being highly trained professionals with years of higher education. Many were IT
specialists, doctors, engineers or teachers in their home countries and had assumed
that their degrees and international experience would ensure they would get a job in
New Zealand. President of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand
Javed Khan said that Muslim unemployment was a problem throughout the country;
however, Christchurch’s figures were worse than anywhere else.

Colin Ross and Erling Rasmussen
The University of Auckland