Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15834] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk about two issues surrounding the bill. One is quite a passionate issue for me as during the mid-1990s I dealt with the contracting out of workers. I would like to revisit the clause in the bill that offers protection to workers in transfer of employment situations. It will provide certainty about what happens to workers when a business or part of a business changes hands as all employment agreements will now be required to address what processes will be followed if the business is sold or if work is contracted out. 
There will be additional protections for workers categorised as vulnerable under the Act. Vulnerable employees—people who work in certain sectors where businesses change hands often—will be given the right to transfer on the same terms and conditions and they will at least have the chance to make a case for redundancy. In my experience in the field of contracting out the practice of businesses changing hands was quite rife in the mid-1990s particularly in the public hospitals. Every public hospital in the Auckland region had contracted out what was termed “non-clinical core services”. 
One of the hospitals in particular had contracted for an international company to take over the service and that company lasted less than 12 months before it went bankrupt. The effect of that bankruptcy left 300 workers—overnight—with no terms and conditions of employment. I think that most important was the hurt of it all that surrounded the workers’ service—the service given over 15 to 30 years by that 300-strong workforce who lost their redundancy provisions as a result of the bankruptcy. Half of that workforce is currently employed back in-house and we have had to renegotiate terms and conditions for the remaining half but we can imagine the instability that has occurred as a result of a changeover from one employer to the other particularly where redundancy provisions have lapsed as a result of the problem. 
I think that under this change that has been proposed we now have some certainty for those workers and I am sure that giving workers the opportunity to maintain their terms and conditions upon transfer from one employer to another is a sensible move by this Parliament. It is a sensible move to maintain some certainty for workers particularly those workers who have large families and I am sure that the security this bill offers will provide them with the chance at least to apply for a new job if the service is transferred to another employer. 
The other area I wanted to talk about was the issue raised by the ACT member Mr Prebble in terms of the bargaining fee. Often I have been in the situation of negotiating employment agreements on sites and I have found a huge division in relation to the workforce at those sites. Obviously the division was caused through union members in negotiation as opposed to non-union members and when we were successful in negotiating decent wage increases those increases were often passed on to non-union members. It caused a huge moral problem on the site for workers to the extent that I felt in some cases it could have led to a health and safety issue. 
I would also like to revisit the Minister’s intention. I recall that he said he was looking at bargaining-fee arrangements to be negotiated where it is agreed that the terms and conditions of effective agreements are to be passed on to non-union members on individual agreements. Non-union employees who do not wish to pay the bargaining fee will be able to opt out of the arrangement. The Minister also agreed with the recommendation and is looking at releasing a Supplementary Order Paper proposing that where a union and an employer agree on a bargaining-fee arrangement affected employees will take part in a ballot to decide whether the bargaining-fee arrangements should operate in their workplace. I think that that is a positive move at least to address the discrepancy between those two groups of workers. The issue about providing a fee of a sort for non-union members will I hope enhance and reduce tensions on the site between the two groups. Obviously I believe that that is a key fundamental from my experience of being in those situations and negotiating those terms. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Employment Relations Act and the key amendment made in this Employment Relations Amendment Bill is about fair employment law. It is about resolving disputes without lawyers—if that is possible—about giving employees a genuine choice between individual and collective employment agreements and about creating more certainty about what happens to employees when a business is sold or transferred. I think the bill represents a good balance of practical and realistic measures that will strengthen the Act and further promote positive employment relationships. After all that is the key to any industrial situation. Claims that the amendments are about compulsory unionism national awards or compulsory arbitration are absolutely wrong. 
The bill is about providing a balance in employment relations. Opposition parties would like that balance to be tipped in favour of the employer but often when we are talking about equal balance we need to have some assurance that workers do have an opportunity at least to negotiate on an even playing field with their employer. They should have that opportunity to be able to put forward claims and negotiate their way through. I suppose that in looking at the principles of good faith we hope that the principles will at least set a platform for negotiation in situations where often—and I have been in those situations—employers just refuse to negotiate and where there is not even the opportunity to place claims on the table because some employers refuse to get around the table so that at least that can be achieved. 
I am confident and hopeful that these moderate changes may provide an opportunity for workers at the very least to be able to sit at the table and talk through the issues that I think both the employer and those workers have in common. In my brief association with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee before I was released from the committee I heard a number of submitters talking about looking at various changes. From what I observed I think the select committee has done a good job in addressing those changes.