Throw out the Mapp Bill CTU tells Select Committee

"If the Mapp Bill is passed the continued employment of up to 300,000 working New Zealanders will be dependant upon the unchallengeable decision, the prejudices, and the whims of their employer" CTU president Ross Wilson told the Select Committee on the Mapp Bill today.

Parliamentary Select Committee hearings began this morning on National's 90 Day Employment Amendment Bill.

"The Employment Relations Act already provides for genuine probationary employment," he said. "Mr Mapp has failed to produce any evidence that the existing provisions in the Act are unworkable."

"Genuine probationary employment raises a reasonable expectation of continuing employment," he said. "This Bill strips all working New Zealanders of all rights for the first 90 days of their new job."

"The primary reason given for this Bill is that existing law makes it too difficult to dismiss an employee ."

"Yet we know that 0.1% of employees take an employment problem to the Employment Relations Authority and the numbers taking up personal grievances in the first 90 days is completely insignificant."

"The number of cases relating to the existing s67 probationary period provision in the Employment Relations Act are too few to register" Ross Wilson. ""Employers aren't even using the provision they are complaining about."

"This is not a Bill that can be fixed up - and the union movement is arguing for the select committee to throw it out."

CTU introductory comments on the Bill at select committee today are below. For a copy of the full CTU submission, click here.  The scoop.co.nz website has a report of today's select committee hearing, including audio files of the CTU and others - click here for more.

Introductory comments by CTU president Ross Wilson to CTU submission on the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill 2005

1. The CTU and Te Runanga o Nga Kaimahi Maori o Aotearoa are absolutely opposed to the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill 2005 (“the Bill”). In introducing our submission both myself and our Vice President Maori Sharon Clair, will make some brief comments.

2. The first fundamental issue we have with this Bill is that it is not genuinely about probationary periods. A genuine probationary period creates a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. This Bill strips all workers commencing a new job of all rights in respect of that employment. Whether the employment continues is dependent upon the absolute discretion, prejudice, even whim, of the employer. No reason need be given. That is not probationary employment. Probationary employment is already provided for in s67 of the Employment Relations Act and the CTU has yet to see any evidence to suggest that employers have had any significant problems with it, or in fact even used it.

3. The primary reason given for this Bill is that the existing law makes it too difficult to dismiss an employee, and much is made of anecdotal stories. The facts are:
a. Only .1% of employees take an employment problem to the Employment Relations Authority
b. The number of employees who take a personal grievance in the first 3 months appears to be insignificant, and those who challenge termination of probationary employment under s67 appears to be too small to register at all.
c. In 2005, in every 3 month period there were 297,210 instances where somebody started a new job.
So this Bill would take away the rights of up to 300,000 working New Zealanders in any 3 month period in order to address an alleged issue (the alleged difficulty of terminating employment at the end of a probationary period) when evidence has not been produced to support that claim.
And it would deny one of the most fundamental rights in English law: the natural justice right to be heard. Workers may be sacked without the reason being put to them, or ever being disclosed.

4. I also briefly note the many other reasons, detailed in our submission, why we oppose this Bill on behalf of working New Zealanders:

a. The Bill, if implemented into law would, in addition to denying a worker any right of redress against arbitrary and unjustified dismissal:
i. Deny any remedy for breach of contract by the employer
ii. Deny access to mediation, including denial of the right to ring the Department of Labour for information and advice
iii. Deny the right to recover arrears of wages
iv. Deny access to the processes under the ERA for sexual harassment and/or discrimination or any other “employment problem” as defined in the Act for which mediation and legal processes are otherwise available.

b. The Bill would encourage a negative workplace culture. Any worker in their first 90 days of employment knows that any suggestion or query they make could result in dismissal. That is exactly the opposite of the sort of workplace culture both Business NZ and ourselves agree we have to build for a modern knowledge economy. It is, to say the least, disappointing that, despite all our work together on productivity and skills buiness organisations appear to have reverted to old ideology in supporting this Bill.

c. A related point that is that dismissal without redress could also occur if an employee:
i. Is elected as a workplace health and safety representative or as a learning representative
ii. Exercises the legal right to refuse dangerous work.

d. The Bill will reduce labour market flexibility. Workers will be reluctant to start a new job if doing so will put them at risk of arbitrary and unjustified dismissal for 90 days.

e. The Bill would prejudice future employment prospects for employees who are dismissed with no right of appeal to argue their case but need to declare such a dismissal when they apply for a new job.

f. The Bill would disqualify dismissed workers from claiming a benefit as the automatic stand down period is usually not waived if there is no personal grievance being pursued.

g. The Bill is an attack on fundamental union rights which are guaranteed as human rights under international law. Under the Bill it would be possible for an employee to be dismiss without redress for joining a union or participating in union activities such as collective bargaining.

h. Workers are at their most vulnerable when they first start a job. It removes rights from people when they most need them.

5. The CTU is not suggesting that every employer will take advantage of this Bill should it become law. Many will not want to put new employees in the situation of huge insecurity which it would allow. But enough employers would use it for it to become a major, and negative, feature of our labour market.

6. The CTU has long advocated for more investment in people to enhance their chances in the labour market. That is why we support programmes such as TOPS (Training Opportunities Programme); Job Plus; Youth Transition Services; initiatives through the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs; Modern Apprenticeships, the Hui Taumata initiatives, and so forth. Sharon Clair will make comment further on this positive investment approach to getting your workers into jobs.

The CTU does not consider that this Bill has any merit whatsoever, and urges the Committee to reject it.