Employment law stirs barely a ripple

A controversial amendment to employment law which was put on the shelf by Labour five years ago is set to pass into law in the near future with barely a ripple.

Parliament is likely to consider an amendment to the Employment Relations Act this week which will mean that staff employed by a contractor who loses a contract will get the right to transfer jobs to the new contractor and/or redundancy.

In 2000 it was part of the original law change that scrapped the Employment Contract Act, but was dumped because of a storm of protest from employers.

The so-called winter of discontent in 2000 saw Labour slump in the polls as employers lashed out at employment law changes, the renationalisation of ACC and other policies that brought Labour into power in 1999.

Faced with such strong discontent from the business world Prime Minister Helen Clark and her Labour Party deputy, Michael Cullen, set out to tone down the sharper edges of their policy programme.

Among the changes that were sacrificed to appease employers were the contractor law and four weeks' minimum leave.

The changes and others were then the first signs of a rift between Labour and its coalition partner the Alliance party.

The Alliance wanted to press ahead with the changes, but Labour ministers overrode the rearguard action.

The party, led by Jim Anderton, later imploded due to the pressures of coalition.

The death blow was internal opposition over the invasion of Afghanistan, which was supported by Mr Anderton and his Labour colleagues.

Since then Labour has implemented most of the policy shelved during that period and this week MPs will debate the select committee report on the contractor proposal.

A flash point for employer anger five years ago, the legislation's passage this time around has come in for little public attention.

The National Party and many employers still oppose the proposals, saying they ignore the realities of many workplaces.

National argues that if one employer loses a bid to renew a contract because he or she is undercut, it would be impossible for the winning bidder to employ the former contractor's staff on the same terms and conditions.

The party cites the example of one family business losing a cleaning job to another family business and the winning family having to employ the other family before their own.

Labour says this is shroud waving and the law will protect the employment rights of some of New Zealand's vulnerable workers whose wages and conditions eroded when they keep working in a job, but their employer or contract changes hands.

- NZPA