Clendon David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Clendon David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15211] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill and in doing so I acknowledge my colleague Keith Locke who has led the charge and done the background work on this proposed legislation. At the bill’s first reading we supported its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but it was qualified support. In his first reading speech my colleague posed two challenges to the mover of the bill. He said that whether we support it beyond its first reading and its referral to the select committee would depend on whether it was proved at the select committee that there is a real need for this bill and secondly on whether there were ways to handle some of the downsides of the bill that were spoken about at that point. In summary he posed the question: what is the problem that exists that requires the intervention of this bill? 
It is often said that we are over-legislated that we have too many laws too much legislation. We have come to the view that this bill is simply unnecessary. It would serve no useful purpose and there are some definite negative elements to it that would do nothing for industrial relations and employment relations in this country. We have done the work the investigation and we believe that there is no demonstrated pattern of unions engaging in strike action without a democratic mandate from their members. Clearly any proposed strike that came without the support of the members of a particular union would not win their support and potentially would lead to loss of membership of the union. Indeed unions are legally established as incorporated societies and as such are obliged to operate in a genuinely open transparent and democratic fashion. To impose any sort of strike action on their members could clearly be seen to contravene that and could lead ultimately to the dissolution of a union. Clearly there is no case to be made for the imposition of the rules in this legislation. 
Any law that intrudes unnecessarily on the functioning of voluntary associations is bad law and that is what would be established if this bill were to pass into law. One of the aims of section 3 of the Employment Relations Act is “reducing the need for judicial intervention”. If this bill becomes an Act it is likely to lead to more legal challenges. It will create situations where employers could potentially use these provisions to challenge delay and harass unions that for quite legitimate and decent reasons were proposing strike action. The point has already been made for example that there is no countervailing requirement that the shareholders of a publicly listed company be obliged to conduct a vote and get a democratic majority position to impose a lockout on workers. One wonders why we would go down the path of imposing extra constraints on employees but not on employers. 
Thirdly the application of this law would be impractical. The Unite union made a very useful contribution pointing out that a union membership that consists largely of younger particularly transient members who are dispersed geographically around the country would find it extremely difficult practically to hold a democratic vote to test the waters amongst their members. 
There are issues about the consideration of health and safety. The bill purports to prevent employers from preventing a strike on health and safety issues. I recall an instance many years ago when a group of men went on strike because when they came to their break no hot food was available to them. There was something of a public outcry at what appeared to be quite a petty reason for strike action but in fact those men were doing hard physical work in a very cold environment. That example would be an interesting test of health and safety issues as we understand them now. 
Clearly this legislation would create the opportunity for legislative mischief for unreasonable and unsustainable challenges to the legal right of workers to withhold their labour when they deem that that is the last resort available to them to achieve decent salaries wages conditions or whatever it might be. It boils down to a simple fact. This bill is unnecessary. It would impose costs and burdens unfairly and unreasonably and the Greens will oppose it. Kia ora.