Flavell Te Ururoa: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19262] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Morena tatou e tenei ata. At this point in the urgency programme there is something very attractive about the concept of holidays although sleep is an even more attractive option at this point of the programme—and going home. We are pleased to support this Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Bill which amends the Holidays Act 2003 to ensure that when a work shift spans two days and at least one of those days is a public holiday an employer and an employee can enter into an agreement to transfer the public holiday to cover one whole shift. It all sounds very complicated I suppose but in reality what the bill does is reinstate previous practices that benefited both the employer and the employee. 
We are pleased that the bill is supported by both employers and employees—a win-win situation all around. In fact this proposal has been so well accepted I understand that the employees of Heinz-Wattie have actually made a joint application for the change with the company. As I understand it the bill provides specifically for agreement about such a transfer to be reached in certain circumstances. These circumstances are when say the shift spanning two days starts or finishes on a public holiday. 
The first point to note is that the legislation is intended to specifically address the consequences of the Supreme Court decision in the airline pilots case. The effect of the Supreme Court decision was to overturn the Employment Court decision in the Heinz-Wattie case. The Heinz-Wattie case that went to the Employment Court dealt with the issue of shift workers whose shifts cross midnight. The Employment Court had found that workers and employers could agree to observe a public holiday based on the shift patterns rather than on the period from midnight to midnight. The Employment Court’s decision was generally supported both by unions and employers whereas the Supreme Court found that a public holiday can be only one of the days listed in section 44 of the Holidays Act. This is where it becomes rather complicated. 
The general policy statement in the bill specifically states: “This legislation is needed following the recent Supreme Court decision  
New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited 
”. However it deals with only the Heinz-Wattie case issue of shift workers. It does not address the issue of for example workers who want to observe days of cultural significance other than those listed in the Act. Basically the bill proposes to repeal section 44(2) of the Holidays Act altogether and effectively replace it with new section 44A which deals only with the Heinz-Wattie scenario of shift workers. In other words the bill appears to narrow the circumstances in which a public holiday can be transferred to only the situation where shift workers’ shifts cross midnight. 
However the general principle of workers having the ability to observe days of cultural significance to them rather than being limited to those days listed in the Act is a good one we believe provided it is not open to abuse. The best way of doing that the Maori Party thinks would be to provide that such arrangements require an agreement between the employer and the employee and to provide that they can be initiated by employees only. 
The scenario might be for example that a Muslim worker wants to observe the beginning of Ramadan which is a day of cultural significance to him or her rather than Christmas Day. Or a worker may want to celebrate the birthday of Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana or perhaps the monthly hui on the 18th of the month as practised at Parihaka—as my colleague Mahara Okeroa would know—or the on 12th of the month as practised by the Ringatu people. That worker would be able to request that he or she works on Christmas Day and that the nominated day of cultural significance would become his or her public holiday. We think that is a pretty good idea. The employer would not be able to withhold agreement unreasonably. The worker would not be entitled to time and a half for working on Christmas Day. 
The Maori Party will be supporting this bill. We have spoken to a number of different union organisations and we know that their members are very supportive of this bill. We know that Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions have been consulted and that they both support the amendment. 
Many of these same members work in food factories that run 24-hour production lines and they work 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. night shifts so they are directly affected by this bill. What appears to have happened as a result of the Supreme Court ruling is that at midnight the pay rate changes which causes hassles for payroll and confusion around wages. For 24-hour production companies it has also meant that two shifts of workers are entitled to a day off in lieu instead of one shift. Although this may be good for workers for some companies it means closing down from midnight to midnight to avoid having to compensate all of the workers of two different shifts by giving them a day in lieu. We know this is the case for both Heinz-Wattie in Hastings and Unilever in Petone. Therefore in practice it turns out to be not so good for workers after all. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill but we consider that the costs of time delay and uncertainty need to be addressed immediately. We are pleased to lend our votes to give effect to this.