Wine industry reels at housing rule

The wine industry in Marlborough is reeling from news that vineyard employers are legally responsible for ensuring workers have accommodation.

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) is making the industry aware of the little-known agricultural law, which contractors and growers say is out of date, unreasonable and unworkable.

Marlborough Winegrowers spokesman Stuart Smith said the requirement for employers to ensure their workers had reasonable accommodation was "ridiculous".

It was something the industry could never live up to and was unlikely to try to live up to, he said.

"It would just be silly. There is no way we as an industry would think about that."

However, health and safety inspector Sharon McDonald said "principals" in agricultural businesses, such as owners of vineyards, had a responsibility to ensure their workers were appropriately housed.

"They have got to be accommodated in one way, shape or form," she said. "It is not acceptable for them to be in cars or tents."

She said she knew there were people living that way in the peak of the season, but she was only now learning the extent of the accommodation shortage.

Ms McDonald said OSH had not pushed the issue until now, but with Marlborough's rapidly expanding wine industry, health and safety measures had to be brought up to standard.

Those measures included ensuring employees had toilet and washing facilities.

Some vineyards had taken those steps and had excellent health and safety management. Others would have to follow suit, she said.

"It is not like it is a poor industry. They can afford to do that."

OSH would make site visits, check that health and safety was being managed and that workers were being accommodated.

OSH Nelson Marlborough service manager Brain Stratford said it was time for the industry to take responsibility for the accommodation of its workers.

Marlborough Contractors' Federation chairman Bob Lee said he discovered the law's existence only this week.

He said he provided accommodation for his Marlborough Horticulture workers through his own Jacks' Backpackers, but said that was done for business reasons.

"We could see where the industry was going and unless you can offer accommodation for your workers you can't offer continuity for your clients."

But Mr Lee said the OSH stance was worrying for the industry.

"If they are going to force the issue I think we have got problems," he said. "I think it is unfair lobbing it on the industry like that."

Viticulture New Zealand operations manager Andrew Arbuckle, who is also a spokesman for the contractors' federation, said accommodation should be left to the accommodation industry, but employers did have a responsibility to ensure their workers had a bed.

"Not to provide the accommodation but to make sure they are adequately housed."

He said one health and safety concern for the contractors' federation was the lack of toilet and washing facilities on some vineyards.

Mr Smith said the agriculture law went back to when agricultural work could be hours from town.

He said the people sleeping in cars were often doing so because they chose to. If they were put up in accommodation instead, the cost would be taken out of their pay.

Another issue would be policing the law, given that workers might shift from one vineyard to the next.

He said the shortage of accommodation was a concern to the industry at large, but the idea of enforcing an old agricultural regulation could seem a good one only from a tower block in Wellington.

- NZPA