Moroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 24 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s assertion that we will “absolutely not” see thousands of workers denied their tea breaks under his changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes I do.Sue Moroney: Well why is it that prior to National taking away tea break entitlements Cotton On gave warehouse workers more than the previous law required—that is a 30-minute lunch break on full pay—but after National’s law change wants to scrap tea breaks all together?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Employment Relations Act has not done away with rest and meal breaks—Hon Annette King: Oh yes it has.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and it does not matter how many times the member says it it does not make it so. To the second part of the question as I understand it in respect of the negotiations the member refers to they are ongoing.Sue Moroney: Does the Minister believe then that New Zealand workers like those at Cotton On should have to threaten strike action in this day and age just to get basic provisions like a lunch break or a tea break at work?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is not appropriate for me to comment on a specific negotiation between an employer and a union but the only situations where an employer does not have to give meal breaks are when the employee agrees and it is reasonable. The union can say no.Sue Moroney: What will he do to ensure that the Cotton On workers continue to get their tea breaks at work given that he assured Parliament on 22 October last year that “It has to be done with the agreement of the employer and the employee together.”? What will you do Minister?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It appears that I have a great deal more faith in the unions’ ability to negotiate an agreement than that member does. I can tell the House what I will not do. I will not be injecting myself into a matter that a politician has no place going into. I have confidence in the process.Sue Moroney: Why did his law change which he claimed just removed “unnecessary burdensome regulation” also prompt Postie Plus to issue individual agreements before the law even took effect that state: “Branch managers are not required to provide rest breaks and meal breaks.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would have to check the veracity of the member’s claims but if they are in agreements as the member describes they are likely to be in breach of the present law as they would have been in breach of the past law and there are remedies available.Sue Moroney: To assist the Minister to check the veracity of the statement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask to table the document without—Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a copy of the individual employment agreement that is in the name of Postie Plus which says—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a copy of the claim that Cotton On has put before FIRST Union in their negotiations which strikes out the requirement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.