Non-union workers receive union gains, admits Westpac

By PAULA OLIVER

One of the country's largest employers has admitted it passes on union-negotiated terms and conditions to non-union employees - and says it sees no problem with that.

Westpac Bank, which employs more than 6000 people in New Zealand, told a select committee that outlawing "free-riding" would be its worst nightmare.

The bank's employee relations manager, Marianne Wilkinson, made the statements on Thursday during an appearance before the select committee examining the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill.

The bill would make it a punishable breach of good faith for an employer to pass on any union-negotiated deal to non-union employees. Unions applaud the proposal because they see free-riding as undermining their strength.

They have long argued that employers use free-riding as a tactic to turn people away from union membership.

The law changes would also require employers to bargain properly with employees on individual contracts.

Many employers have said they do not pass on union-negotiated terms and conditions, but Westpac broke with tradition and openly said it did.

"It has been our habit to pass on the outcome of the collective," Wilkinson said. "That's been the case since the days of the bank officers' award."

She said having to actively negotiate individually with staff on contracts would be her worst nightmare.

"I really struggle to see how on Earth we would make this work, given our size, our geographic distribution, and the fact that we want to spend our time and resources on providing good customer service and not doing business with ourselves."

The bank's view, and its estimates of how much it would cost to start a new negotiation process, drew scorn from some Labour members of the select committee.

Westpac has one large collective agreement with the potential to cover 3500 employees.

Another smaller one is specific to a particular business area.

About 1900 employees who could be part of those agreements are not - and it is these people Westpac is worried about having to negotiate with individually.

It was likely that the bank's 470 managers would have to be trained to deal with the negotiating.

"The potential for things to go wrong is very large when you've got that number of people running off doing their own thing," Wilkinson said.

The process was likely to require four fulltime workers dedicated only to negotiating with individuals.

Labour MP Helen Duncan asked Wilkinson if what she was effectively saying was that the union was saving Westpac a lot of money.

After a pause, Wilkinson replied that "that was one way of looking at it".

If the union did not exist, Wilkinson said, Westpac would be forced to have everyone on individual agreements.

Duncan asked if the bank would then negotiate with each person.

"Probably not every year," Wilkinson said. "Probably on entry, and an annual salary review. We would deal with the rest by policy enhancements."

Westpac had taken the initiative by starting a paid parental leave policy in advance of legislation in that area, and Wilkinson said the bank was a good employer.

In Australia Westpac's employees were on an agreement which applied to everybody whether they were union members or not.

"We don't see passing on the terms of the collective to all our staff as undermining the process. We see it as a positive for our staff. We struggle with the concept of undermining. That's not our intention."

The bank also expressed concern about provisions in the bill which would protect "vulnerable workers" when their employer was sold or their work was contracted out.

Westpac felt that the schedule of workers did not now include anybody within the bank, but it was worried that the list of "vulnerable" occupations could be added to at the recommendation of the Labour Minister.

The bank also questioned a new test of justification for dismissals.

It said it was in a business where staff were required to have the utmost integrity.

It felt that the new test could result in a situation where two people who had committed the same dishonest act were treated differently because of their differing personal circumstances.