Long battle looms on employment law

By VERNON SMALL

Parliament begins a marathon debate today as the Government uses urgency to push through industrial relations law in the face of Opposition filibustering.

National has vowed to fight the Employment Relations Bill with a welter of amendments, possibly extending the debate until Saturday.

But it can only delay the passing of the bill and is unlikely to win significant concessions.

Labour, the Alliance and the Green Party back the law change, which repeals the Employment Contracts Act, strengthens incentives to negotiate collectively through unions, and introduces the concept of good-faith bargaining.

Under urgency, Parliament's sitting hours are extended and other normal business, such as daily question time, is set aside.

Also facing defeat is a Green plan to protect service-sector workers - mainly cleaners, catering staff and hospital orderlies - when jobs are contracted out or employers lose a contract. Effectively it would require a successful tenderer to hire the previous contractor's workers in a narrow range of cases.

The Green amendment would revive one of the most controversial "lightning-rod" issues in the draft bill.

Known as the "transfer of undertakings" clause, it was dumped after opposition from employers, who felt it amounted to a guaranteed redundancy payment. Unions also opposed it, fearing it would turn employers away from collective contracts.

As it stands, the bill stipulates only that a collective agreement must contain (unspecified) provisions covering what happens when a business is sold or a contract is transferred.

The Government has said that the protection could be beefed up as part of an improved minimum code of rights for workers.

But Green MP Sue Bradford said Labour had betrayed a promise to give more protection to lower-paid workers, especially Maori and Pacific Island women.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said she had not seen the Greens' amendment, but a satisfactory clause could not be drafted without significantly delaying the bill, which will take effect on October 2. She said a simple law risked catching situations beyond the original intent of law drafters.

Helen Clark left open the possibility of a later amendment, saying it was an open question how the issue would be addressed. A minimum code might not be the only way.

"What we are signalling is that the issue of transfer of undertakings is a serious one and we want to get it right."

Sue Bradford called on the Alliance, whose Willie Jackson backed her in the select committee, to vote for the amendment.

Associate Labour Minister Laila Harre, an Alliance MP, said her party had tried hard to advance the issue and believed it could be put in the bill now.

The Alliance had, however, won a strong commitment from Labour to deal with the transfer of undertakings early in the examination of a minimum code. It would stick to its deal and would vote against the Green amendment unless Labour changed its stance.

"My advice is that at this late stage we shouldn't start deviating from agreements," said Laila Harre.

Act leader Richard Prebble said Ms Bradford was "a lamb in the select committee and a lion in Parliament" because she had voted against an Act move to investigate the practicality of her planned change.

He said his party's support was "extremely unlikely."

National also opposed the Green amendment, said industrial relations spokesman Max Bradford.

He said Ms Bradford and Mr Jackson were thinking only in terms of cleaners but it could affect airline caterers, rubbish removal from Parliament, gas and electricity suppliers, even couriers.