Cullen tips changes to ease bill fears

By BRIAN FALLOW

Finance Minister Michael Cullen yesterday foreshadowed changes to remove the "negative side-effects" of the Employment Relations Bill.

He outlined the Government's thinking on "lightning rod" issues that upset business in the original draft, but said the bill's core policy objectives remained.

Though he stopped short of detailing precise changes, he told the Employers and Manufacturers Association in Auckland that Government MPs on the select committee considering the bill would address the following issues:

Genuinely independent contractors should not be forced to become employees against their will.

"The legislation was only ever meant to deal with the sham, where marginalised workers with no negotiating leverage are denied rights of workers by being classified as contractors," Dr Cullen said.

Another criticism, especially from the information technology industry, is that the bill discourages the use of fixed-term contracts.

The intention, Dr Cullen said, was to prevent the abuse of employers locking people out of service-related entitlements by cycling what in reality were permanent employees through a series of fixed-term engagements.

On protecting the confidentiality of information released to unions during negotiations, Dr Cullen said: "We have received some useful suggestions regarding how this can be achieved in practice, for example by limiting access to information to that which is necessary for the purpose at hand and by giving employers the option of filtering actually sensitive information through safe third hands."

On the extent to which employers should be allowed to talk directly to employees during the course of collective bargaining, Dr Cullen said the intent was that the employees should not be used as a battering ram against their appointed representatives. "As long as the communications do not seek to disrupt the bargaining process by deliberately undermining the relevant union, employers will have nothing to fear."

The continuity-of-employment clause has drawn fire from both employers and unions, though for different reasons.

It was intended, Dr Cullen said, to cover the conditions of employment of existing workers when an undertaking was transferred to a new owner or a business was contracted out.

Defining the rights of access of union officials to workplaces was one area where the legislation had to be prescriptive to be effective.

"The select committee will need to devise a formula that allows access, restricts it to proper purpose and hedges it with respect for safety, security and confidentiality. Both sides will want a different formula: there will need to be a compromise on this issue," he said.

The provisions on replacing striking workers was a case where conflicting rights had to be balanced: the right to strike and the right to employ.

Employers should not be able to compel other employees to do the work of striking workers, Dr Cullen said, but, equally, workers who volunteered to do other jobs should not be precluded from doing so.

The provisions on directors' liabilities were aimed at cases where unscrupulous employers had set up sweat shops, paying less than the minimum wage, disregarding the Holidays Act and then escaping the clutches of labour inspectors via insolvency. The legislation would be amended to make it clear they were the targets. Bona fide directors had nothing to fear, Dr Cullen said.

Details of the changes will not be confirmed until the bill is reported back to Parliament on August 1.

Employers Federation chief executive Anne Knowles said it was clear the Government had listened to business concerns.

She has written to the select committee's chairman, Graham Kelly, seeking a chance to have some input into ensuring that its intentions are reflected in the wording before the bill is reported back.