Treaty clause axed from pay bargaining code

By AUDREY YOUNG

The Treaty of Waitangi clause has been dropped from the code of good faith bargaining after the Prime Minister made it clear it would be unacceptable.

The code now simply encourages bargaining parties to consider, where appropriate, Maori protocols and practices and other cultural differences or protocols.

The code is provided for under the Employment Relations Act, which takes effect next Monday.

Under the act, unions and employers are required to conduct collective agreement bargaining "in good faith," and the code is an attempt to give guidelines on what that means.

The largest part of it describes which aspects of bargaining unions and employers should sort out before they begin bargaining.

These include who will negotiate, the frequency of meetings, arrangements for setting up venues and paying costs, communications during bargaining, and handling disagreements.

The code is not part of the act, but the law requires the Employment Relations Authority and the courts to take it into account when deciding if a party has breached the law and not acted in good faith.

The final draft, prepared by a joint employer and union working party, was issued on Friday.

A draft unveiled two weeks ago contained a proposed union clause saying: "The parties should consider appropriate ways in which good faith relations can reflect the Treaty of Waitangi. In addition, the parties should give due consideration to proposals of particular importance to Maori."

But Prime Minister Helen Clark made it clear the Government would reject such a clause if it appeared in the final draft.

"The treaty was an agreement between the Crown, now the Government, and Maori iwi and hapu,"she said at the time.

"The Employment Relations Act is not such an agreement. It is an act governing relations between employees and employers."

National's industrial relations spokesman, Max Bradford, said the code was worded so generally it was an invitation for litigation.

"There is going to be a lot of litigation around the definition of what it actually means in practice," he predicted.

Act leader Richard Prebble said the code was pretty useless and did not add or subtract anything.