Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21559] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 4 is about the purpose of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek your advice on that. You said it was a narrow debate. Can I get an explanation about why it is a narrow debate given that it is about the purpose? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well just look at it: it requires unions to hold a secret ballot of its members. You cannot talk about things other than what clause 4 says. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Thank you Mr Chair for that explanation. Let us talk about the purpose of the bill. I am happy to do that. The purpose of the bill is to require unions to hold a secret ballot of their members to approve a strike before undertaking any strike action. I want to understand why this purpose clause is necessary. What is the mischief that we are trying to cure? We heard from various parties in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there was no mischief to cure and that the bill crushes a gnat with an anvil. There is no problem. 
The purpose clause apparently prevents union members from pressuring other union members into striking. Tau Henare said it came from his time as a union organiser in the 1980s. I do not want to keep repeating our allegations about his time in the 1980s but he said he stood in front of workers before a “show of hands” vote with a presence that would have made them think twice about voting “no”. I say again that that was the 1980s. But is that really— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That was Tau Henare. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That was Tau Henare too. Is that really a problem in 21st century New Zealand? Is it really a problem in 21st century New Zealand unions? The member in the chair the Hon Tau Henare talked about a miner’s wife. There was a press release from a miner’s wife. An anecdotal report as I understand it behind the purpose of this bill was that a West Coast miner’s wife was blasting the union because it failed to hold a secret ballot. But I also understand that the union involved was the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. As a matter of interest that is the union that represents the miners in mines like Pike River. Dreadful consequences have gone on there. If only there been a strike over health and safety in Pike River we may not perhaps have had to have an amendment to the Act in which the member is saying that unions should hold a secret ballot for strikes. 
I say on that point though—if I may while we are talking about this—that I am pleased that during the select committee process the member did listen to the submissions where people talked about the restrictions the purpose would place on secret ballots for health and safety and what a concern that was. I am pleased that he has taken that on board and that that has been included in the bill. The select committee said that that amendment was good. 
But even if under this bill there had been no secret ballot the member under the purpose of this bill would have had a valid complaint against the union. The union has it in its rules. Its rules as do the rules of many unions already require there to be a secret ballot. For example the rules of my own union the Service and Food Workers Union say that any member can call for a secret ballot on anything—not just strike action but any action at all whether it is election of officers expenditure or anything else—provided 10 percent of the members sign a petition. Many rules already cover what the purpose of this bill which is in clause 4 purports to do so there is no need to have this legislation. There is no need. No union organiser that I know in this day and age would attempt to organise a strike without a secret ballot. 
I think clause 4 assumes that workers are really stupid and that they do not have a mind of their own. When workers go on strike we are talking about people walking off the job and forfeiting their salary or their wages for the day. That is a big call that they make. I think it is actually quite insulting to say in the 21st century that workers are so stupid and so pathetic that they cannot even stand up for themselves. We hear that from National members all the time do we not? Is that not what we hear from the Minister of Labour? We hear that the Labour market is very flexible that people know their rights and so on. With clause 4 the purpose clause this bill is imposing a 1980s solution in the 21st century. 
We heard an interesting thing in the select committee and I know it from my own experience. The only accusations that I can recall are of union organisers attempting to dissuade workers from going on strike. It is very ironical that it is one of the accusations that we hear. One of the things I think the member in the chair does not understand is how much things have changed. Unions in workplaces bring a kind of discipline that we did not see in the Hon Tau Henare’s time in the 1980s. It is different. Far from the situation where a union organiser goes out and says: “We should all go on strike. Pull the pin and let’s go.” we often see union organisers meeting with the members and trying to work through the offer in a reasonable way because it is mostly about collective bargaining. The biggest problem unions have is trying to persuade the odd disaffected member who wants to take a more militant approach. 
Currently the Employment Relations Act does not require unions to hold secret ballots before striking but this is the usual practice in most unions. As we heard in the select committee most unions already have that practice in their rules. Requiring unions to hold a secret ballot vote is not unusual but there are some practical difficulties with it. I think the biggest objection to the purpose clause is the imposition of a requirement of unions to hold secret ballots when unions are democratic organisations. They have rules that are bound by the Employment Relations Act and they have to demonstrate through the Employment Relations Act that those rules are democratic. They have a whole range of things. 
The purpose of this bill would have been easily amended easily fixed and perhaps would have met the objectives of the member in the chair if we had simply said that every union must have rules for determining the process when there is going to be a strike or industrial action. A strike under the Employment Relations Act is much more than just stopping or withdrawing labour; it is often going slow or a whole range of things. There are a whole lot of different ways of taking strike action under the Employment Relations Act. 
The other part about this purpose of course is that it picks on one side of the employment relationship; it completely ignores the other side of the employment relationship. The other part of the Employment Relations Act is that employers can lock out workers. They can make a decision to take industrial action. They can take industrial action and lock out workers. In fact I have been involved in some of those lockouts. They are pretty vicious. But there is no corresponding duty under the purpose of this bill to require either employers or shareholders to ballot their members about imposing lockout action. 
That is one of the amendments I am proposing. It seems fair enough to me. If we have to live with this why should it not be an equal duty? Why should there not be a balanced approach to the purpose of this bill? If unions are required to hold secret ballots shareholders should be required to hold secret ballots if they are proposing to lock out their workers. The consequences of a lockout are just as devastating as the consequences of a strike. As I said unions take this very very seriously. There have been some pretty vicious lockouts in recent times. There is no requirement on employers to take the views of their shareholders and investors into consideration. I think that is wrong and I would like to see the purpose of this bill changed. If we are going to require secret ballots of workers why not require secret ballots of shareholders to approve a lockout? It is a corresponding action. 
We are talking about fairness and balance. I know that the Government likes to talk about balanced employment relationships. Let us do the right thing by changing this purpose clause. Thank you.