10. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Is she satisfied with the operation of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Yes, I am; and I assume that Parliament for the last 30 years has also been satisfied, because that section is relatively unchanged.
Does the Minister agree with the Employment Relations Authority that postal workers can go out on their runs to deliver their mail and secretly strike by deliberately dumping their mail—so that it has to be re-sorted and redelivered on another day—yet still be entitled to a full day’s wages; if so, why?
I would have assumed, given the member’s previous occupation, that she would understand that it is totally inconsistent with constitutional conventions for a Minister to make comment on a matter that may well come before the Employment Court.
Does the Minister think that it is fair that workers secretly striking by sabotaging a business cannot be suspended but that striking workers, who give notice, can?
The point of section 87 is to ensure that when workers are on strike, the employer suspends them and does not have any liability to pay them. If the member is proposing that employers will be required to pay striking workers in future, then that would be a very interesting development that I think Business New Zealand would be delighted to respond to.
When, according to the authority, the current legislation means that employers are “vulnerable to a sudden strike amounting to surprise or guerrilla tactics”, does she think that only vulnerable workers, not vulnerable employers, deserve the protection of fair and equitable employment law?
As I made very clear in the answer to the primary question, I support the intention of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act. It has remained essentially unchanged over three decades, before a variety of Governments in this Parliament, and that is because our Parliament has consistently said that when workers are on strike the employer must be able to suspend them and not have the liability to pay them.
Peter BrownDoes the Minister accept that in a tight labour market, such as we have now, it is reasonably straightforward for a striking employee, or a suspended striking employee, to take on temporary work with another employer; if she does recognise that, can she advise whether she regards such a practice as operating in good faith; and if it is not, what can be done about it?