12. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Does she stand by her statement that “employers are unnecessarily paying costly settlements at an early stage rather than entering a dispute resolution process because they mistakenly perceive it to be expensive and protracted.”; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Yes, I do, although the full statement is that research shows that “some employers” are doing this. The Department of Labour’s research shows that the most common settlement using formal dispute resolution procedures was between $2,000 to $5,000. I am concerned that employers are paying out more than this because of the perception of costs and time to use the formal systems; a perception stoked by statements such as that made by David Lowe of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) that employers can expect costs of up to $5,000 if they win and $20,000 if they lose. That is not consistent with the research facts.
Why is the Minister telling employers that they are mistaken if they think that mediation is expensive when, according to her own department’s research, employers are telling her: “Employers seem to have to pay for everything.”, “Whether you are right or wrong, you always have to bring your chequebook out.”, and “Even if I win I am $10,000 out of pocket.”?
It is a sort of “rest my case” situation, actually. It is no wonder that employers do not continue to move away from the misperceptions they have about the process when examples like that one, based on that misperception, are perpetuated by the member in this Parliament, rather than relying on the facts of the situation.
Lesley SoperYes. I have seen a proposal in which there would be no dispute resolution processes or access to personal grievance proceedings for an employee’s first 90 days of employment. This probationary employment proposal is National Party policy and it was warmly endorsed by its future employment relations spokesperson Bob Clarkson, who said that a probationary period is a good idea as he would be able to “fire young Māori workers more easily”.
Does the Minister believe that employers were lying or exaggerating when they told her department that “The department’s mediators appear to have an attitude of ‘Take out your cheque book—
Darren HughesI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the questioner but while she was asking that question, Mr Clarkson called out twice. The first word was a swear word and the second word was an unparliamentary word.
Madam SPEAKER
Bob ClarksonJust be seated for a minute please—just for a minute. I did not actually hear the member. If he did use that language I ask him to withdraw and apologise to the House. Now, if the member wishes to say something, please?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not swear, at any rate, so the member is a twit. Secondly, I did call someone over there a liar, and that person is a liar.
I seek leave to table the quote from Tauranga’s member of Parliament, Bob Clarkson, from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when he said that he wanted to hire young Māoris on his building sites, but was put off by the fact that he could not get rid of them easily enough.
Does the Minister believe that employers were lying or exaggerating when they told her department that “The department’s mediators appear to have an attitude of ‘Take out your cheque book and we will go home.’ ”?
Neither. I think they are relaying their truthful but incorrect perception of the process. That is exactly the point of the research, which shows quite clearly that their perception is not backed up by facts.
How can employers have confidence in the mediation process of the Minister’s department, when many of them believe that resolving problems outside the formal institutions is “quicker, fairer, and yields a clearer outcome that satisfies both parties.”?
I wonder whether the member is, in part, in her question alluding to the proposal from her colleague Chris Finlayson, who has suggested in his statements over the weekend that the dispute resolution process, both through the mediation process and through the Employment Relations Authority, should be abolished, and that all industrial issues should go straight to the Employment Court. If the member is concerned about cost and time in the current process, she needs to talk to Chris Finlayson and say that abolishing the Mediation Service and the authority is not a sensible proposal.
How can the Minister stand here and defend the Mediation Service, which is seen as so expensive and protracted, when, according to her own department’s research, some employers are not willing to take on more staff because they are worried about having to go through it?
Actually, the intention of the Employment Relations Act is to have any industrial issues resolved at the least formal level and inside the workplace as a preference. But employers should not be put off from using the free Mediation Service, offered through the Department of Labour, because of misperception. That is the point of the research, and the member should try to understand that.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that almost every survey taken of business over about the last 3 or 4 years has cited shortage of labour as the main problem facing businesses, not an unwillingness to take on additional labour?
That is exactly the biggest challenge facing employers in New Zealand at the moment. We have a very proud record of reducing unemployment, which we will continue to maintain, but that has caused us another problem, as with the increasing availability of work we still do not have enough workers to fill those jobs.
Peter BrownWill the Minister clarify the situation: has she received any reports from employers that tell her that the mediation system under the Employment Relations Act is much simpler and more cost-effective as against what it once was under the Employment Contracts Act, and that employers much prefer the current system of mediation and settling disputes; and is that true or false?
That is not a specific part of the research being undertaken at the moment, which is not a comparison between the previous system and the current system. But it certainly does indicate that the proposal by Chris Finlayson—which is to abolish the low-level free or low-cost mediation and resolution services in favour of going straight to the Employment Court—would not be favoured by any employer. It would be favoured only by the National Party.