Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15445] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to see the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour this afternoon and I am delighted—a little bit—to take a call on clauses 1 to 3 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). As my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined there are only three little parts to this bill. I will concentrate on clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. I have to agree with Mr Mallard that that clause tells the truth. It is very sinister though. It has half a dozen words: “This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000.” They are words that I hoped as a member of Parliament I would never ever hear from a National Government because they are filled with foreboding—they amend the Employment Relations Act 2000. This amendment bill is beyond our worst nightmares. I want to take the opportunity to talk about what amending the principal Act will mean for people who are already operating under the Minister’s previous amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000—that is those who are in workplaces with fewer than 20 staff. I want to talk about what it will mean for every worker in the country who will be affected by this bill. 
In talking about amending the Act I will put on record some stories that have come through and there are many. I will not talk about the sauce and aioli story; I will talk about the stationery store worker who was fired on the 85th day of her 90-day trial period. She only worked Saturdays. She was never told there was any dissatisfaction. 
There was the case of an experienced hairdresser who had never been dismissed before over many years of working for several employers. 
There was the case of a recent university graduate employed by an accounting firm. Near the end of his 90-day trial period the employer said that he had done well and would be offered a new agreement. But when he received a new agreement he saw that it was unlawful. It contained the 90-day trial period provision which he pointed out was unlawful and the boss told him not to come in on Monday. 
There was the case of the farm worker who during his first week on the farm picked up an infection related to his job. He was in hospital for a week then returned to the farm and was sacked under the 90-day trial period provision. Amending the principal Act will produce that consequence for thousands and thousands of workers—400000 workers who change their jobs every year will risk this sort of treatment. 
Another young woman told me that she started work in a heating firm and despite bringing in sales she was sacked after just 8 days with no reason given. She wrote to the company to ask for a reason but she has never received a reply because under this Act the company does not have to give an answer. 
One woman moved from the North Island to the South Island to be close to her elderly parents and took up a job with a local firm. She had positive feedback on her performance and even suggested some training on her own behalf in order to further improve. She was dismissed with no reason given. With an unsold home in the North Island she is now living in a caravan. Those cases are the consequences of clause 3 and the amendments in Part 1. 
One woman who had a hearing impairment was employed by a call centre. The employer knew about her impairment when he took the woman on. She required some special equipment but instead of providing it the employer changed his mind and simply fired her under the 90-day trial period provisions. He told her not to come in on Monday. 
A worker in a communications company turned up for work to find the office being renovated. Unable to find alternative facilities the company simply fired that worker. The company said that it did not have to give any reason and that it could fire her under the 90-day trial period provisions. 
Members will be familiar with the Act but we are now talking about what this amendment bill will mean. It will have consequences for thousands and thousands of workers. 
Another example was of an early childhood teacher with 11 years of teaching and nannying experience who took a job at an early childhood education centre over another offer. Six weeks into her new job she was told there was a complaint against her and she was fired the next day. No previous concerns had been raised about her performance and she was given no chance to read the complaint or respond to it. She was an early childhood education teacher. I thought we were short of them. Mind you there will be surplus will there not? There will be no positions. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: There will be no positions for them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right because the Government is cutting back on early childhood education. Despite all of the investment we have put into that person and her training to make sure that she is able to provide a proper education to our children she has gone. She will find it really hard to get another job and she is devastated by that. The consequences of this amendment are severe.