Moroney Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:429] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In rising to debate Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill I must say that it feels like being in a bit of a time warp because the last time a new National Government came into power one of the very first things it did was to strip away workers’ rights and it is happening again. Last time the National Government did it with the Employment Contracts Act but even then its members stopped and paused to listen to what the public had to say. Even back in the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act at least there was a select committee process. This time workers’ rights are being stripped away without any recourse for the public to say what they think about it. It is just like being in a time warp and Part 2 is the mechanics of how exactly workers’ rights are being stripped away once again by an incoming National Government in its first 100 days.  
Did National members ever warn us that it was going to happen in the first 100 days? No we did not learn that it was not on the list that was published before the election when John Key said—and I will just double-check and I may table this copy of the 100-day action plan later because it is definitely not on the list.  
I start with clause 6 because this actually amends the current provision for probationary periods. That is right ladies and gentlemen. In the current Act of Parliament there is already a provision for probationary periods. That is why clause 6 in Part 2 of this bill amends the probationary period that is already in the Employment Relations Act. The bill amends it by taking the words “or trial” out of it. Suddenly it is not a trial it is just a probationary period. I ask how that changes anything. I would like the Minister to tell us exactly how taking the phrase “or trial” out of the current Act actually changes things. I suspect that this is a further stripping away of workers’ rights but I do not understand what the implications are. I would like the Minister to answer that question addressing clause 6 in Part 2.  
I move on to clause 7 because this is where it really starts to get down and dirty. This is where workers’ rights are actually stripped away and I can understand this part. First of all it talks about the trial period being for 90 days or less. I wonder whether it is any coincidence that the Employment Relations Act also has another time frame in it that fits inside of this. It is the ability for workers to decide to join a union and thereby stay on the collective agreement within the first 30 days of their employment. I think this is an important time frame to think about because when employees are first employed under the Employment Relations Act they automatically go on to a collective employment agreement if one exists in their workplace. If they want to stay on that collective employment agreement they must join the union within the first 30 days of their employment.  
Perhaps I am being a little suspicious but it seems to me that the reason 90 days is the probationary period is that it fits outside of the 30-day period so that employers can use this bill to discriminate against workers who decide to join a union. We will never know the answer to that I say to the Minister because under this bill employers do not have to give a reason at all. They just have to say: “Sorry don’t turn up tomorrow. Don’t come Monday—DCM.” That is what this bill should be called the “Don’t Come Monday Bill” because in fact that is all that employers have to tell them—to not turn up to work again. They do not have to give workers a reason they do not have to say: “It’s not because you weren’t performing properly; it’s because you joined the union and I didn’t like that.” There are a whole range of reasons that employers will be able to use to discriminate against employees and those are just some of them off the top of my head.  
The other thing covered by this part of the bill is mediation. I know that the Minister has made some deal about mediation being put into this bill. Those of us who have been practitioners in this area know a little bit about mediation and we know why mediation works. It does work. It is extremely effective. Mediation is effective because all of the parties to mediation know that there is another part of the process that if they do not commit to coming out with a good-faith process of mediation there is potentially a personal grievance procedure they can go on to and other remedies that can be sought under the Employment Relations Authority. That is why mediation can be very effective in sorting out these issues because both parties know that if they cannot sort it out at mediation there are other legal remedies and further steps where those things can be resolved—but not under this bill.  
This is the really important part because this in my humble view is where the rights of workers get completely stripped away in the first 90 days if they work for an employer with 20 or fewer employees. It is in clause 7 which inserts new section 67B in the current Act. I will read out new section 67B(3) for anyone who is listening to this debate and who may be in any doubt whatsoever that the rights of workers are being stripped away by this bill and I ask them to contemplate subsection (3) of new section 67B. This is the actual wording: “Neither this section nor a trial provision prevents any employee from bringing a personal grievance or legal proceedings on any of the grounds specified in section 103(1)(b) to (g).” What it does tell us is that employees employed in a small workplace will in the first 90 days of employment lose the right that every other worker in this country has to bring a personal grievance or to go to the Employment Relations Authority. That is what they actually lose and that is taking workers’ rights away.  
I think the timing of bringing this in—[ 
Interruption 
] ACT Party members might find that very very funny. They may actually think that the situation of workers at their most vulnerable time is funny—the first 90 days of their employment when they are trying to learn the culture of the workplace understand their job and come to grips with all the health and safety provisions and all the regimes that happen in those first 90 days. They may think that it is incredibly funny that they will not have their full rights in place but that period is the very time when people do need to have their full rights in place.  
I particularly want to argue the case for young workers and those experiencing their very first job. Of course I want no one to be fooled into thinking that this bill applies only to people experiencing their very first job because it does not. It affects anyone who changes job and it applies for the first 90 days of that employment where his or her employer has 20 or fewer workers. But it is young workers primarily for whom this will be the most difficult. As a parent of young children I do not want my children to be exposed to this because I know that when they are very very nervous and new to the workplace they will want the opportunity that every other worker has which is to have properly explained to them what they may be doing wrong and let them understand what the culture of the workplace is; this bill actually stops those conversations from taking place. 
The other point I would like to mention quickly—because I think it does need serious consideration by the Committee—is the very good proposed amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to ensure that teachers be exempted from the probationary period provisions. I know that members of the Government have argued that they are not employees in places of 20 or fewer employees but that is not the view of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The institute which actually negotiates the employment agreement for teachers says that they will have this bill applied to them. I want to ensure that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill does contain this very very good amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new section 67C “Teachers to be exempted from probationary period provisions”. I would also like the Committee to consider other groups of workers that may need that protection as well. I had not thought previously of teachers as being particularly vulnerable groups but clearly they are. It has been in the debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Anne Tolley said they were. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Perhaps they will be under a National Government. Perhaps that is what she meant. Perhaps Anne Tolley was making a prediction that teachers will become vulnerable under a National Government.