Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15412] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to follow on with clause 40 “Transitional provision” rather than clause 39 “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. The transitional provision clause is the reference to the individual employment agreement and the requirement under new section 10 that the employer must retain a copy of the individual employment agreement or individual terms and conditions of employment. Clause 40 clarifies the fact that that provision applies whether “individual terms and conditions of employment were provided to or agreed with the employee before or after the commencement of this Act.” 
The transitional provision and the reference to the individual employment agreement is very important because in this area also there will be the question of whether a 90-day no-rights provision will apply. It will include the “take it or leave it” employment agreements that we have talked about previously. With regard to the individual employment agreement that is being referred to here whether it be agreed before or after the commencement of this Act whether it has any reference and whether it was a genuine negotiation is of course irrelevant because “take it or leave it” provisions appear to be acceptable to this Government. 
We have heard members opposite arguing that that is a matter of choice. Those of us who know what people feel like when they are out of work and struggling to make ends meet know that “take it or leave it” employment offers particularly in periods of high unemployment are not at all a matter of choice. I think that we will find plenty of people in the Mana electorate in that particular situation: they do not have a job they would like a job and if they are offered a job with an individual employment agreement with a 90-day trial provision there will be no negotiation or choice associated with the matter. 
I think a number of other transitional arrangements really should be included in this part. We will be going from a situation where the 90-day no-rights provision applies to workplaces of fewer than 20 employees to a situation where they apply to all workplaces. The majority of New Zealand employees work in large workplaces; although the majority of workplaces are small workplaces the majority of employees are employed in large workplaces. These changes bring those workplaces into the scope of the legislation. 
I wonder whether some transitional arrangements are required around for example the ability of Work and Income to deal with these changes because the provision does not require an employer to provide any reason for a dismissal. Not only does the worker not have the right of redress but the worker does not actually have to be given a reason why they have been dismissed. Under our benefit system people can be stood down from their right to access a benefit if they have lost a job because it is their own fault. In a situation where they have no idea why they have lost their job Work and Income have to intervene. 
We sought advice from officials on this matter and we were provided with advice. In summary the advice is that if the employer does not respond to a request from Work and Income to give a reason then it will take whatever reason the employee gives them. But if when Work and Income contacts the employer they assert a reason even if they have not told the employee why they have been dismissed—they could make it up on the spot—that reason will be accepted by Work and Income and there is no right to challenge it. Potentially the provision could deny somebody access to a benefit. 
We are applying this provision to all workplaces so the extent to which Work and Income will be required to make those sorts of judgments and to deal with those very complicated situations will increase. I wonder whether there is a need to look at or change the transitional provisions. 
I wonder also whether any thought has been given to the change in culture in our workplaces. It is quite hard to have transitional arrangements about change in culture but the fact of the matter is that at the moment most employees are working in workplaces where they can challenge unjustified dismissal.