Campaign News

CTU "Fairness at Work" rallies called on Saturday 21 August

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +1200

The EPMU is urging all members to attend the Council of Trade Unions' (CTU) "Fairness at Work" rallies in the four main centres at 1pm on Saturday 21 August. The rallies will be the first step in a public campaign opposing the Government's plans to extend the 90-day 'fire at will' law to all workplaces and other related law changes.

They will be held in Auckland, Wellington, Chistchurch and Dunedin. The Christchurch rally is at 1-3pm in Cathedral Square. Further details about rallying points and timing for the other cities will be announced shortly.

"We need every member and their families who can possibly be at these rallies to attend. So please join us at one of the rallies on Saturday 21 August to give the message: we won't stand for these unjust laws," says Andrew Little, EPMU national secretary.

"There is no need to scrap existing fair dismissal laws. Under the Government's plans any worker starting a new job will be liable to having a clause in their employment agreement, effectively removing their right to be fairly treated in the first 90 days," he says.

"It is vitally important that workers have access to union advice and support in the workplace. The Government's plan to enable employers to refuse union access to workplaces undermines workers' freedom of choice," he says.

"New requirements for workers to get a medical note after a single day of sick leave are impractical and onerous."

"Taken together these changes will make work less fair and less rewarding."

Legislation is expected to be introduced to Parliament in the next 4-6 weeks where it will be vigorously debated for the rest of the year. The EPMU will continue building the momentum of the "Fairness at Work" campaign through this period.

+ read more

Metals MECA settles with pay rise and extra holiday

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +1200

Nearly 2000 engineering and manufacturing workers will have pay increases above inflation and an extra day holiday in 2011 after EPMU members voted overwhelmingly to ratify the Metals and Manufacturing multi-employer collective agreement (MECA) today.

The new agreement provides for a 3% increase on all printed wages and allowances this year, followed by a 3% increase next year, and a one-off holiday to acknowledge that, for the first time, Anzac Day will fall on the same day as the Easter Monday holiday in 2011.

"This is a good outcome for members. Our aim was to get them a pay rise above inflation at a time when prices are rising and the government has announced a GST hike, which will hit workers' pay packets," says Andrew Little, EPMU national secretary.

"EPMU members around the country responded strongly to our argument that they deserve the extra holiday in 2011, so we're pleased the employer parties have agreed this as well," he says.

"The trend-setting Metals agreement is now set to grow, with EPMU members at other sites organising to join its coverage", he says.

"If small to medium enterprises can offer a 3% pay rise and an extra day of holiday then there's no reason why larger, more profitable employers can't do better," he says.

The Metals and Manufacturing MECA is the EPMU's largest multi-employer collective agreement, representing nearly 2000 workers at over 100 firms.

Employment laws should make work more rewarding

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +1200

By Andrew Little, published in The New Zealand Herald.

Changing laws doesn't create jobs and the Government's latest moves to erode workers' rights won't either.

Whether it's trial periods or new requirements to have a medical certificate after a single day's sick leave, law changes that make work less fair just make work a less rewarding experience.

The existing 90-day "trial period" law introduced in March 2009 permits small employers to hire a new worker under a clause allowing the worker to be sacked within the first 90 days of employment with no recourse if the sacking is unfair or unjust.

But the "trial" law is completely different to our "probationary" law, and the two should not be confused.
Under our probationary law an employer and a worker can agree on a probationary period (which can be longer than 90 days) to try out a new worker.

It is pretty fair, the worker's basic rights are preserved and the courts have traditionally adopted a lower threshold of justification for dismissal for probationary workers compared to longstanding employees.

The "trial" law is quite different. There is no requirement to be fair or to provide feedback on performance during the trial period. It is a period during which a worker has no right to fair treatment.

We were told when it was introduced that the law was necessary to allow those on the margins of society, such as those over-represented in unemployment figures like young adults, Maori and Pacifica workers, to have a chance of getting a job.

But more than a year's experience of the "trial period" law shows it is being abused.

For example, 17-year-old Florence Cohen was given a dismissal letter five minutes before she was due to end her shift on the final day of her 90-day probation period at a stationers near Wellington.

She has no right to challenge her dismissal and her employer is not required to give an explanation why. For Florence, this wasn't a work trial. It was a dog trial.

There has been no evidence produced whatsoever that the "trial" law has produced a single extra job. That is, a job that would otherwise not have been in existence were it not for the law.

In fact the evidence is the opposite. If the existing law was in fact creating new jobs then we would expect to see, even in a period of sustained high unemployment, marginalised groups in the labour market not being as badly affected.

The latest unemployment figures from March 2010 show Maori unemployment was 14.2 per cent compared to 9.6 per cent in February 2009. Pacifica unemployment was 14.4 per cent compared to 7.8 per cent, European/Pakeha unemployment was 4.4 per cent compared to 3.2 per cent and youth unemployment (15-19-year-olds) was 25.2 per cent compared to 14.3 per cent.

Reports released in the last few days by the Government and by the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association show that the law is being used to fill jobs that have always been there.

Even putting aside the high probability of self-interest in the claims by some employers interviewed for these reports that the law was necessary in order for them to employ anyone, not a single employer was able to show that they "created" a new job (that is, added to their workforce) because of the law.

It is simply not possible to say such a law change leads to new jobs, nor that it gives chances to those who find it difficult to get a job.

The underlying sentiment of this law, and the move to extend it, is that workers cannot be trusted.
Workers now need to prove themselves before they are worthy of a job.

Because after all, so the apparent belief goes, workers just want a job so they can slack around. Never mind their sense of pride and self-worth.

The same sentiment underpins the new requirement to provide a doctor's certificate after one day's sick leave.

If a worker takes a sick day they can't be trusted to be honest about the reason for it. The cuddly nanny state has given way to school ma'am finger-wagging.
Such a measure is impractical. There are many occasions when we know we are unfit to work but not so sick we need to go to the doctor.

And if there is a problem with repeated absenteeism, the employer has all the powers in law to deal with it properly and sensibly, as indeed most employers do right now.

Our laws should reflect community expectations of standards of behaviour. And when it comes to work, the least we should expect is that every worker - young and old, full-time and part-time, union and non-union - should be treated with basic decency.

It's what managers are paid to do. It's not too much to ask.

Andrew Little is national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) representing 50,000 workers across 11 industry sectors. Previously he was EPMU legal counsel.

Workplace changes mean, unnecessary

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +1200

By Andrew Little, published by The Press.

The Government's recently announced changes to employment are niggardly and nasty. They won't improve a single wage packet or create a single extra job.

Extending the 90-day "no right" trial period to all businesses has rightly attracted the most attention and some of the least-informed commentary. But other changes such as placing control of union access in the hands of the employer, allowing the trade-off of the so-called minimum entitlement to four weeks annual leave and requiring a medical certificate for just a single day's sick leave are equally indicative of a pendulum swinging heavily back to employers.

Yet other changes which on their face appear fairly technical - such as ensuring employer processes are not subject to "pedantic scrutiny" and changing the legal test for justification of dismissal - have far-reaching implications.

The stock-in-trade of some editorial writers and commentators supporting these changes is to claim that anyone opposing them is being hysterical. But the changes are radical and they need debate rather than mindless put-downs of those in the debate.

So, starting with the 90-day "trial" law introduced in March 2009, this permitted small employers to hire a new worker under a clause allowing the worker to be sacked within the first 90 days of employment with no recourse if the sacking was unfair or unjust.

We were told when the law was introduced that it was necessary to allow those on the margins of society to have a chance of getting a job. That it would increase jobs as employers would have fewer risks in hiring new workers because they could be tried out.

Let's be clear. The "trial" law is completely different to our "probationary" law, and the two should not be confused. Under our probationary law an employer and a worker can agree on a probationary period (which can be longer than 90 days).

Under this law, the employer is required to give regular feedback during the probationary period, at the end of which if the employer is not satisfied with the performance the worker can be dismissed. It is pretty fair and the courts have traditionally adopted a lower threshold of justification for probationary workers than long-standing employees.

The"trial" law is quite different. There is no requirement to be fair or to provide feedback on performance during the trial period.

New Zealand's fair dismissal laws have been based for 40 years on the principle that a worker should not lose their economic livelihood without good reason and due process.

Due process includes being given the courtesy of knowing what you've done wrong and having a chance to explain. We do not tolerate arbitrary decision-making from any other body that exercises authority over us.

There is no principled basis to tolerate it from employers.

The evidence is that the "trial period" law is being abused. Complaints have been received by the EPMU and other unions of workers who have been compelled to sign agreements with "trial" clauses in them and then found weeks into the job they are summarily dismissed without even an explanation of why they have been sacked.

And there has been no evidence produced whatsoever that the "trial" law has produced a single extra job. That is, a job that would otherwise not have been in existence were it not for the law. In fact the evidence is the opposite.

Reports released in the last few days by the Government and by the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association show that the law is being used to fill jobs that have always been there, including the Prime Minister's pizza boy's job.

The Press in its editorial last week supporting the law change argued that most employers are responsible and they will not abuse the law. So, the real question is, why change the law at all?

If responsible employers will not abuse the law and will act fairly and reasonably then there is no need to change laws, including our existing probationary law, that presently require employers to do just that.

What The Press is supporting is a law change that lowers the standard of all employers to that of the worst employers.

The "90-day trial" extension, as with the other measures announced by the Government, is underpinned by an assumption that workers cannot be trusted. One of the employers quoted in the Government report on the trial period law confirmed this when he said the law should be extended to six months because workers could easily behave for three. According to this employer, workers get a job in order to slack around and undermine the business.

The same anti-worker sentiment sits behind the demand that workers provide a sick note for a single day of absence. There must be independent evidence of sickness because workers cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

The proposed new law on union access is about handing control to the employer and is based on the premise that the boss controls the workers as well as the workplace.

Union access is inextricably linked to workers' freedom of choice to belong to a union. That choice is the worker's. And what goes with that choice is the right to have a representative of the chosen union in the workplace when the worker needs it.

The access right of the union representative stems from the choice of the worker, not the employer. Any impediment to that choice or the natural incidents of it makes the worker's freedom of choice meaningless. And that is no choice at all.

In reality, many of these changes are a distraction from the real challenge of government which is to grow our national income and improve individual and household incomes for all. This challenge entails lifting productivity, and this requires an engaged and committed national workforce.

Measures that erode workplace rights, that see workers as disposable and which make it harder for workers to exercise their legitimate choices end up diminishing workers' voices at work and undermine any claim to improved productivity. An economic future built on diminishing workers' rights is no economic future at all.

* Andrew Little is national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) representing 50,000 workers in 11 industry sectors. Previously he was EPMU legal counsel.

EPMU joins CTU in opposing National's plan to scrap fair dismissal laws

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +1200

The EPMU will join with the CTU and other unions in opposing National's plans to extend its 90-day ‘fire at will' unfair dismissal law to all workplaces at a rally outside the National Party conference at Sky City conference centre in Auckland on Sunday 18 July at 10 am (rallying point is 72 Victoria St West).

"There is no need to abolish existing fair dismissal laws. Under National's plans any worker starting a new job will be liable to having a clause in their employment agreement effectively removing their right to be treated fairly in the first 90 days," says Andrew Little, EPMU national secretary.

"Legislating to allow employers to refuse union access to workplaces also undermines workers' freedom of choice," he says.

"Make no mistake. This is an old-fashioned National Party attack on workers," he says.

"When the CTU calls union leaders together next week the EPMU will be calling for a full commitment from all unions and mass mobilisation of union members and workers to defeat this assault from National," he says.

"In a modern age of workplace relationships based on mutual respect and engagement, abolishing fair dismissal rights goes against this and is a charter for bad managers to be even worse," he says.

"The heart of existing dismissal laws is the requirement for workers to be treated fairly and have a voice over decisions that affect them; it is not an onerous requirement."

"No worker, regardless of length of service, should have their economic livelihood taken from them unfairly, without good reason and due process."

The EPMU is New Zealand's largest private sector union representing 50,000 workers across eleven industry sectors.

+ rally photos

Government plans major cutbacks to fair dismissal laws

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +1300

The Government this week released a discussion document proposing further erosion of New Zealanders' protections against unfair dismissal.

The changes proposed in the discussion document include:

Extending the 90-day fire at will period for workers at small companies, including extending the period but also making it apply to companies with up to 50 workers instead of 20 workers.
Reducing the 90 day time limit in which a worker can raise a personal grievance.
Setting a period of time a worker had to be at a company before they could make a complaints, and
Removing all rights to fair dismissal for workers earning over a certain income.
Measures including regulation to ensure better standards of employment advocates such as ‘no win, no-fee' advocates.

The EPMU said the Government must ensure its review of fair dismissal laws is based on evidence and is not simply an excuse to strip away rights to natural justice.

EPMU national secretary Andrew Little says the underlying principle of this review must be that no worker should be deprived of their economic livelihood without good reason and due process.

"The ability to take away someone's economic livelihood is a huge amount of power, and it's a basic democratic right that all workers have access to natural justice.

"It is not encouraging that these natural justice rights have already been denied to thousands of workers in small businesses through the 90 day fire at will law and we will oppose any attempt to extend this period or apply it to the majority of Kiwis who work for large employers.

"While the evidence shows the system is fundamentally sound, there are areas where we believe the law could be improved, in particular the regulation of opportunistic ‘no win, no fee' agents, as well as better information and assistance for SMEs about their legal rights and obligations.

"However, it's crucial that this review is based on evidence and that when the minister hears employer complaints about our dismissal laws she is able to distinguish between the usual whinging and moaning on the one hand, and the genuine problems on the other.

"If the Government simply uses this as an opportunity to pander to bad employers and strip away basic work rights then it's hard to see how they can expect workers to willingly embrace a productivity agenda."

The union said it is committed to engaging constructively with the review but is concerned it is being driven by an employer lobby agenda to undermine basic protections against unfair dismissal.

Dismissal law review must not erode right to natural justice

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +1300

The Government must ensure its review of fair dismissal laws is based on evidence and is not simply an excuse to strip away rights to natural justice, says the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.

The EPMU is committed to engaging constructively with the review but is concerned it is being driven by an employer lobby agenda to undermine basic protections against unfair dismissal.

EPMU national secretary Andrew Little says the underlying principle of this review must be that no worker should be deprived of their economic livelihood without good reason and due process.

"The ability to take away someone's economic livelihood is a huge amount of power, and it's a basic democratic right that all workers have access to natural justice.

The EPMU is New Zealand's largest private sector union, representing 45,000 members across eleven industries.

ENDS

For more information please contact Andrew Little on 027 551 3476 or EPMU communications advisor Rob Egan on 027 276 5146.

EPMU defends striking workers in Supreme Court case

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +1300

The EPMU defended the rights of striking workers in the Supreme Court on Tuesday after Air New Zealand subsidiary Air Nelson won the right to challenge a Court of Appeal decision.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the issue, which revolves around the definition of the work of striking workers during industrial action and the right of employers to undermine workers' industrial action by using strike-breaking labour.

The issue arose after Air Nelson used strike-breaking labour to undermine a strike by EPMU members employed there in 2007. The EPMU took Air Nelson to the Employment Court, which ruled in Air Nelson's favour. The EPMU appealed that case to the Court of Appeal and had the ruling overturned, and Air Nelson subsequently took the case to the Supreme Court.

The outcome of the case will have major implications for union members as it will determine the ability of employers to undermine industrial action with strike-breaking labour.

A ruling on the case could take several months.

National-led government raises ACC levies, cuts coverage

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +1300

Changes to ACC to hike levies and reduce coverage were passed into law this week with serious consequences for workers.

The government has justified the changes with claims ACC is insolvent, despite the fact the organisation made a billion dollar surplus last year and holds $11 billion in investments.

EPMU national secretary Andrew Little says the bill is an attack on working Kiwis.

"The argument that ACC needs to be fully funded is spurious and using this rationale to charge workers more and look after them less is an act of deceit."

"This bill is an attack on working Kiwis who will now pay more and get less from ACC."

The government's changes to ACC include:

forcing workers to use up their holiday pay entitlements before receiving weekly compensation payments
a reduction in the ready for work status from 35 to 30 hours making it easier to force claimants off weekly compensation
undermining the vocational independence process
excluding those with less than 6% work related hearing loss from cover
increasing levies for the majority of New Zealanders

CTU urges Government to shun youth rates bill

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +1300

The CTU is calling on the government to shun Roger Douglas's youth minimum wage rates bill because it is discriminatory and will do nothing to ease unemployment,

The bill, which was drawn from the members' ballot in Parliament this week, would repeal the abolition of youth rates by Labour and the Greens in 2008.

"The minimum wage in this country is already low and expecting any group to work for less than $12.75 per hour is grossly unfair," said Kelly.

"There is also no reason why two people doing the same job should be paid different rates simply because of an age difference. The removal of youth rates in 2008 was a major step forward in improving human rights for this age group and in improving their standard of living.

"Unions campaigned in 2007 to have youth rates abolished and we will fight any attempt to reinstate them. The evidence has been there for years that lower youth rates have no net effect on the creation of job opportunities. The existence of a youth rate will mean that employers will displace older workers when a minimum waged position is available. Many employers that employ large numbers of young people have adapted well to the new law and in fact many have even removed the training rate from their employment agreements. Employers have moved on, Roger Douglas should as well."

"We want the Government to reject this unfair Bill and instead implement policies that stimulate the economy including job creation measures that help young people get into work."

On Thursday the Minister of Labour appeared to back away from earlier support for reinstating youth rates in a reply to a written question from Labour MP Darien Fenton.