Employment Relations Amendment Bill: Potential changes to consider

Introduction

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 26 April 2013 and passed its first reading on 5 June 2013. The Bill introduces many changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 relating to the following key areas:

  • Restructuring and the Privacy Act
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Trial periods
  • Flexible working hours
  • Part 6A (vulnerable workers)
  • Rest and meal breaks;
  • Strikes and lockouts
  • Employment Relations Authority decisions
Restructuring and the Privacy Act

Following the recent Employment Court decisions, some uncertainty arose in terms of what information employers are required to release to those interviewed for prospective jobs. The Amendment Bill provides a specific list of information which an employer does not have to disclose particularly in relation to confidential information.

Collective bargaining
Concluding bargaining

Currently the parties in employment relationships are required to conclude bargaining on collective employment agreements unless there is a real reason not to do so. In addition to this, the parties are also required to continue bargaining even though when deadlock has been reached. The Amendment Bill seeks to remove the requirement to continue bargaining when deadlock has been reached and repeals the section which requires parties to conclude a collective agreement. The Amendment Bill emphasises good faith negotiations rather than negotiations merely for statutory requirements.

Initiation of bargaining timeframes

The current law allows for different time periods between employer and employee for initiating bargaining when renewing existing collective agreements. The Amendment Bill seeks to align both employer and employee time limits for the various steps that are to taken.

Opting out of multi-employer bargaining

Under the Amendment Bill, multi-employer bargaining may be opted out of within a ten day period. This must be by notice and must be served on all parties without going through the current provisions and steps for bargaining to reach settlement.

Ending collective bargaining

Currently the Act assumes that parties will continue to bargain until settlement is reached. The Amendment Bill seeks to allow parties who are no longer interested in bargaining to ask the Employment Relations Authority to declare bargaining as concluded.

Offering the collective agreement to new employees

Currently when a new employee begins employment where collective agreements are available, the employee has benefit of the terms and conditions under the collective agreement (for the first 30 days) and any specific individual terms negotiated. The Amendment Bill removes the automatic adoption to the collective agreement terms and conditions availability but rather allows the employer to inform the employee about these should they wish to be part of it.

Flexible working
Reasons for requests

Currently employees have a statutory right to request flexible working hours when three criteria apply (care of another person; six months service to the employer and the employee has not made a request in the last twelve months). The Bill removes these criteria allowing any employee to make a request at any time.

Timing of response by employer

Currently an employer is required to respond within three months. Should the Bill be passed, employers must respond within one month.

Part 6A

Part 6A was inserted in 2004 and substituted in 2006 as a protection for employees (typically in service industries) who have been affected by a restructure followed by the same or a similar service being done by another employer. The Bill allows for more certainty and security for “vulnerable workers” in terms of the time by which employees must choose to transfer by, liability for transferring service-related entitlements, change of pay rates and conditions, and the transfer of information.

Meal and rest breaks

The proposed amendments would take away the stringent regime for meal breaks allowing employees to take breaks when reasonable and necessary in the course of work period. Meal and rest breaks must provide the employee with reasonable opportunity to rest, attend to personal matters, for refreshments and be appropriate for the duration of the work period.

Strikes and lockouts

The Bill allows employers to deduct pay for a partial strike by employees to the value of productivity that was lost during the strike time (apart from a lawful partial strike on health and safety grounds). In order for the strike to adhere to statutory requirements, the employer must be given notice, following which the employee must be notified of any deductions that are to be made. Minimum wage provisions will not apply to the extent that the person is paid less than the minimum wage because of a deduction due to a partial strike.

Employment Relations Authority decisions

The Bill will require the Authority to deliver a written decision within three months of the investigation meeting as well as giving an initial indication of what the findings of the ERA might be.

How this will affect you

The Bill sets out a number of potential changes to the current Act. It is important to note that these changes are not in effect yet, and there are a number of steps in the process before any of these changes can take effect. There have been no dates indicated at this stage.

If you would like further information please contact Renika Siciliano on 07 958 7429.

The Constitution Conversation – He kaupapa nui te kaupapa ture

Introduction

The National Government is currently conducting “The Constitution Conversation”; a review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements (“review”). The review originates from the 2008 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Māori Party and the National Government. This review is significant as it calls for public submissions on how we want our country to be run, and includes an inquiry into the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitutional arrangements. However, there are concerns with the scope of the review and whether there is an intention on the part of the Government for the review to give rise to meaningful constitutional change.

New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements

A constitution is the rules that determine who exercises power and how they exercise it. Within a constitution there are rules about the powers of Parliament, the powers of the Courts and the Executive, as well as safeguards to prevent the abuse of those powers.¹  “=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn1″>Put simply, a constitution is about relationships between the Government, the Courts and it is about the rights of citizens.²

Most countries have a written constitution contained in a single written document. New Zealand does not. Unlike most countries, New Zealand has an unwritten constitution, meaning that the rules that determine who exercises power and how they exercise it are to be found in a collection of statutes like the Constitution Act 1986, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Electoral Act 1993, among others. As well as various statutes, New Zealand’s constitution is also made up of the Magna Carta, Court decisions, doctrines, conventions and long standing practices of Parliament.  not. Unlike most countries, New Zealand has an unwritten constitution, meaning that the rules that determine who exercises power and how they exercise it are to be found in a collection of statutes like the Constitution Act 1986, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Electoral Act 1993, among others. As well as various statutes, New Zealand’s constitution is also made up of the Magna Carta, Court decisions, doctrines, conventions and long standing practices of Parliament.³

It is now generally accepted that Treaty of Waitangi is also part of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution. This is because the Treaty of Waitangi is the document upon which the New Zealand Parliament claims legitimacy or the sovereign right to make laws in New Zealand.

Professor Burrows states that, someone wanting to find the New Zealand constitution would need to piece it together and then try to understand it.⁴”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn4″>  Burrows also provides that a constitution has to fit the culture and character of a country and, if this is so, our constitutional arrangements are seriously outdated and in need of change given that New Zealand now has more international relationships, the relationship between local and central government is changing and the population demographics are shifting rapidly.⁵”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn5″>

Constitutional advisory panel and scope of review

The review will be conducted in consultation with a reference group of members of Parliament from across the house. In addition, an independent Constitution Advisory Panel (Advisory Panel) comprising of a cross-section of the public was elected to carry out the public consultation and engagement programme. Members of the Advisory Panel include Emeritus Professor Burrows (Co-Chair), Sir Tipene O’Regan (Co-Chair), Deborah Coddington, Peter Chin, Sir Michael Cullen, Hon John Luxton, Bernice Mene, Dr Leonie Pihama, Hinurewa Poutu, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Peter Tennent and Dr Ranginui Walker.

The review seeks opinions from the public on what is important about how New Zealand is run, in particular:

  • The pros and cons of having our constitution written down in a single document;
  • The role of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 in our constitution;
  • The role of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution;
  • How Māori views should be represented in national and local government;
  • Electoral issues such as the size of Parliament and the length of its term.
Opinions on the review

There are differing opinions on the review itself.

On the review, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said, “We believe our constitutional arrangements work pretty well and there would need to be a pretty broad consensus for change, and this group has the opportunity to see if that consensus exists”.⁶”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn6″>

Commentators at the Te Papa o Tongarewa Treaty Debates themed “Constitutional Review” said that New Zealand is in a constitutional coma, and there is a general apathy because New Zealand has free democratic elections and a generally stable government. It was also noted that stimulating public engagement and building trust in the review will be a difficult task for those leading the review.⁷”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn7″>

In addition, the fact that the current constitutional review or “The Constitution Conversation” originates from the 2008 Relationship and Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Māori Party and the National Party is a concern for some who believe that the review, having its origins in a political compact, means there is no genuine motivation from the National Government for constitutional change.⁸”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn8″>

The Iwi Working Group on Constitutional Transformation came together in 2012 and is led by Professor Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson. The purpose of the group is to engage with Maori and to work on developing a model constitution for our country based on Maori kawa and tikanga, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.⁹ “=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn9″>Jackson’s view is that any constitutional review should proceed “with time”, preferring to look at it as “constitutional transformation” rather than constitutional change or reform:¹⁰”=”” data-toggle=”tooltip” data-placement=”top” data-original-title=””>kaupapa-nui-te-kaupapa-ture#_ftn10″>

That might be a play on words, but the difference is really important. Constitutional change or reform presupposes we are just going to accept the status quo…on the other hand, constitutional transformation indicates we are going to have something different – we are going to find something transformative, something new.

The current review does not propose a constitutional “transformation”, however it does seek to encourage dialogue from New Zealanders on the constitution. Submissions close for the first round of public consultation on 31 July 2013. Following the first public consultation round the Advisory Panel will draft a report and then seek further feedback from New Zealanders. The Panel will submit a final report to the Ministers by the end of 2013.

If you would like further information please contact Renika Siciliano on 07-958 7429.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  1. Burrows J, Geiringer C, Thomas N, The Constitutional Review – Te Papa o Tongarewa Treaty Debates 2012
  2. Ibid
  3. Phillip, J Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, 3rd Edition (Brookers 2007), 21-34
  4. Supra n 1
  5. Ibid
  6. Article – Twelve Named to Pilot Constitutional Review – Sourced from New Zealand Herald (12 January 2012)
  7. Supra n 1
  8. Ibid
  9. Ibid
  10. Jackson, M Weeping Waters: The Treaty of Waitangi and Constitutional Change – Constitutional Transformation, Malcolm Mulholland and Veronica Tawhai, March 2010, 334

Contact us

HAMILTON OFFICE

P. 07 838 2079

E. reception@mccawlewis.co.nz

Level 6, 586 Victoria Street
Hamilton 3204
New Zealand

TE KŪITI OFFICE

P. 07 878 8036

E. reception@mccawlewis.co.nz

36 Taupiri Street
Te Kūiti 3910
New Zealand