Winding back of employment relations clock strongly opposed

In a submission to the Education and Workforce Committee, the Auckland Diocese Justice and Peace Commission expressed its “absolute opposition” to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

The submission said the changes proposed “actively and openly jeopardise the dignity, security and rights of workers to such a degree that we are reviving protections, recommendations and arguments that were first introduced by our faith over a century ago”.

The commission cited Catholic Social Teaching on just employment and the rights of workers going back to Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 enclyclical, Rerum Novarum.

“Has our economy digressed to such a state of employment instability that we are entertaining passing a law that undermines the protections of vulnerable workers, weakens collective bargaining, removes union-related provisions and openly prioritises economic efficiency over human dignity?” the submission asked.

The Commission stated that “by far the most concerning amendment . . . is the removal of the 30-day rule”. The rule that automatically signs an employee up to the collective agreement when they sign on to a new job.

This is the “very safety net that ensures new employees are temporarily covered by collective agreements and have access to union information. This removal is explicitly intended to support the expansion of 90-day trial periods which allow employers to dismiss employees within the first 90 days of employment without specified cause and removes the right of access for an employee to seek personal grievance and unfair dismissal procedures”.

The submission recommended the use of 90-day trials be “limited to genuinely exceptional cases only”, and the 30-day rule be retained “to that ensure procedural fairness and safeguards are and remain in place”.

Also problematic is the Bill’s proposed redefinition of “employee” to exclude specified contractors, the Commission added. This exclusion from employee protections “is to risk exploitation that can only further undermine job security”.

The Commission also criticised the Bill’s removal of remedies for employees whose behaviour contributed to grievances. This risked having imbalances that will result in unjust and unfair outcomes and dismissals.

The submission also questioned the need to have a salary threshold ($180,000) above which unjustified dismissal claims cannot be made.

FULL STORY

Employment Relations Amendment Act submission from JPC (Parliament.nz)

Employment Relations Amendment Bill (Parliament.nz)