Gutless tweaks to vulnerable worker provisions / Weekend review
Small businesses were unshackled from messy vulnerable worker provisions this week, but neither side of the bargaining table seems happy with the outcome.
Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson has made businesses with fewer than 20 staff exempt from legal obligations to take on any existing staff or meet their entitlements if they are taking over a business or service contract.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, has estimated 5,500 people are currently covered by the vulnerable workers provision found in Part 6A (Continuity of employment) of the Employment Relations Act, and most of them work in in building and industrial cleaning industries such as catering, laundry and orderly services.
Employers and Manufacturers Association boss Kim Campbell singled out tweaks to Part 6A from the suite of employment law changes announced this week, as a gutless move by the government.
“Any law that guarantees employment to members of a union is flawed and should have been repealed in its entirety,” Mr Campbell said.
“For example, a business owner who dispenses with a cleaning company’s services for sub-standard work may still find themselves with the same people responsible for the sub-standard work.”
Business lobby groups Business NZ and the Business Roundtable and industry association Hospitality New Zealand wanted full repeal of Part 6A.
Avid critic “gob smacked”
One of Part 6A’s most avid critics Grant McLauchlan, the boss of Dunedin-based cleaning company Crest Commercial Cleaning, said he was “gob-smacked by the government’s “weak” action on Part 6A after more than three years had been spent on its review.
Large companies such as Crest had been denied control over who they employed, contradicting government rhetoric around innovation and productivity, said Mr McLaughlin.
The untested soft amendments will create negative downstream effects, he said.
“Companies looking for cleaning services are going to be inclined to choose small operators if they don’t like the cleaners, whether that’s for quality or security concerns, just so they can change the staff.
“But larger companies are being denied this “freedom of association” right. This removes the even playing field in a very competitive industry and this is not right in a free economy.”
Mr McLaughlin asked who would now be keeping tabs on cleaning company staff numbers to see if Part 6A applied or not?
“We have had years of experience with the militant SFWU and I can guarantee they will be taking cases to the court at every opportunity.”
Mr McLauchlan spoke out about Part 6A after his Dunedin-based company was ordered, in two separate Employment Court Cases, to pay almost $20,000 for breaching its provisions.
Mr McLauchlan said he was told in cases concerning Part6A of the Act, the court was expected to find in favour of the employee where there was doubt.
Impact on industry training
Mr McLauchlan said his biggest issue with Part 6A was its adverse impact on industry training.
Training volumes at the Building Services Contractors Industry Training Organisation (BSCITO) have fallen away from 1500 in 2009 to 776 in 2011.
Mr McLauchlan said he understood the volumes had since fallen further to 300, of which Crest makes up 50%.
“None of the large cleaning companies are investing in staff training through BSCITO because of the real possibility they could elect to transfer to the opposition tomorrow.
“This makes the very people Part 6A is designed to protect even more vulnerable.”
Unions also pan the changes
Unions also panned the changes, saying they would give a competitive advantage to ‘cowboy’ enterprises and mistreated some of the country’s most vulnerable workers.
Council of Trade Unions secretary Peter Conway said: “SMEs will have a significant incentive to undercut other tenderers by cutting employees terms and conditions.”
Service and Food Workers Union national secretary John Ryall said: “The reality is that the majority of employers in the industry are SMEs and this opens the door to massive exploitation of the lowest paid workers in New Zealand,” Mr Ryall said.
Government finds bigger companies better able to cope
Ms Wilkinson said the government’s review of Part 6A had found “significant operations issues around transferring employees’ entitlements and information to the new employment”.
But larger businesses were better able to adapt to the provisions while SMEs, which account for about a quarter of the affected industries, faced bigger proportional costs.”
The biggest bugbear for submitters was the inability of a new employer to apportion any employee entitlements to the outgoing business.
Other amendments include requiring an outgoing employer to pass on employees’ information to the incoming employer, introducing a process to more easily apportion service-related entitlements and liabilities, require employees to decide on whether to join a new employer within five working days, and introduce penalties and compliance orders for breaching the provision.
Ms Wilkinson expects the Part 6A amendment to be introduced to parliament later this year, as part of other changes to the Employment Relations Act including:
• Empowering the Employment Relations Authority to declare in certain circumstances that collective bargaining has ended.
• A requirement for the outgoing employer to forward employees’ information to the incoming employer, such as employment agreements, PAYE, wage and time or leave records.
• A process to help the employers agree how to apportion liabilities for accrued service-related entitlements of employees who are transferring.
• A requirement that employees must decide to transfer to a new employer within five working days (or a longer timeframe if agreed between the outgoing and incoming employer).
What should employers watch out for?
Jennifer Mills and Christie Hall of Minter Ellison Rudd Watts say the current vulnerable worker provisions have been difficult to navigate, so changes to improve their clarity are to be welcomed.
However, this remains a very technical area of employment law and some of the proposed changes appear to introduce further complexity.
Areas to watch for include:
Negotiations around leave
One of the main issues with the current legislation has been the ability of an outgoing employer to refuse to make a payment to the incoming employer in respect of leave entitlements that the incoming employer is required to honour.
Cabinet has proposed a negotiation process followed by a default mechanism should negotiations fail.
The concern regarding this proposal is that the relationship between the incoming and outgoing contractor is often acrimonious and to introduce an additional obligation for the two parties to negotiate may simply result in additional time and expense for both parties, when agreement is unlikely.
The negotiation process is also unlikely to assist with the issue of “tendering blind” because the incoming employer may not know the outcome of the “negotiations” until the tender process has been completed
Benefit to SMEs in tendering process?
One of the most contentious changes is the proposal that the amended legislation will only apply to businesses with 20 or more employees. Where an incoming employee is a small or medium enterprise then they will be exempt from the provisions.
Employee organisations are likely to argue this will result in the employees most in need of assistance being denied the protection provided by the legislation.
But employers may argue this is a benefit to SMEs in the tendering process, particularly if there are performance issues with the outgoing employer’s personnel and the new employer wants to avoid those employees transferring to the new employer.
This may result in some interesting corporate structures in order to avoid the application of Part 6A.
Provision for litigation in the District Court
Clarity in this area is to be welcomed. The recent case of Healthcare of New Zealand v Capital and Coast District Health Board & Ors confirmed the Employment Relations Authority does not have the jurisdiction to hear inter-contractor disputes.
However, the new provision for litigation in the District Court (presumably between the outgoing and incoming employers) will need to be carefully managed to avoid double-ups and inefficiency if similar claims between the employers and employees are being dealt with in other jurisdictions.
No change to definition of employees to whom Part 6A applies
One provision that does not appear to be changing is the definition of employees to whom Part 6A applies.
This definition has been clarified somewhat by recent case law (Lend Lease Infrastructure Services (NZ) Limited v Recreational Services Limited), where the Employment Court found that the terms “cleaning services” and “catering services” are not so wide as to include roles which do not involve traditional cleaning (such as dental hygienists, who “clean” teeth) or roles which involve cleaning as a small part (such as cabin crew, who collect rubbish from passengers).
However, the legislative terms are still sufficiently wide to cause confusion among many employers with “borderline” businesses, so it is interesting that Cabinet appears not to have chosen to address this at this point.