6. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Was it the Government’s intention when it introduced the 90-day employment scheme that the usual requirement to communicate the reasons for dismissal in writing to the employee after they are dismissed does not apply when an employee has been dismissed during their trial period?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Firstly, I thank the member for the endorsement that the 90-day trial is actually an employment scheme. But in answer to the question, yes, there is a very narrow exemption from the requirement under section 120 of the Employment Relations Act to provide a written statement requested within the 60-day and 14-day requirement, but we have made it very clear that this does not affect the good-faith requirements to be communicative and responsive. In practice, we expect that fair and reasonable employers will tell employees why a job did not work out.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Was it her intention, when introducing the 90-day provision, that an employer would have no obligation to supply a reason for dismissal to an employee or former employee?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
It was our expectation that a fair and reasonable employer will tell employees why a job did not work out. The intent of the policy was that employers did not have to go through the legal rigmarole of providing formal written decisions.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is she satisfied that the legal change she made has met her intention as she expressed it in the first part of her last supplementary answer?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
I am satisfied that the law is working very well. We have had it in place since March 2009, and the sky has not fallen in.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a relatively simple one. It was a very careful question about an answer to a supplementary question, asking whether the Minister’s intention had been fulfilled by the law, not whether the law was working generally well.
Hon Gerry Brownlee
Mr SPEAKERMembers should not interject while the Speaker is considering a point of order. If I remember correctly, the member asked whether the Minister is satisfied that certain things took place. I understood from the Minister’s answer that she said yes to that. She may not have said exactly “yes”, but her answer gave that indication.
David BennettWhat was the Government’s intention when introducing the 90-day trial period, and has it been achieved?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
The Government intended to create opportunities for New Zealanders to get into jobs, and the evidence indicates that the trial period is delivering jobs. That is why we are moving to extend the trial period to all workplaces.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Was it her intention, when introducing the 90-day provision, that a successful claim of unjustified termination would not be able to secure either reinstatement or compensation for the loss of employment?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
It was the intention in relation to the 90-day trial that a fair and reasonable employer will tell employees why a job did not work out. It was there to create opportunities for new employees to get their foot in the employment market. If the employment relationship did not work out, then it could be terminated.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very careful and very specific question, which went to—
To save the time of the House, I invite the member to repeat his question, because it was quite a specific question in respect of claims of unjustified dismissal.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Was it her intention, when introducing the 90-day provision, that a successful claim of unjustified termination would not be able to secure either reinstatement or compensation for the loss of employment?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
It was the intention of the trial period that it restricts the taking of an unfair dismissal case only in the first 90 days.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question went to the issue that if there was a successful claim of unjustified termination, an employee would not be able to secure either reinstatement or compensation for loss of employment. The question was not about when a claim could be taken, which was what the Minister answered about. It was a question about whether an employee could get compensation or reinstatement in the 90 days.
As I understood the Minister’s answer, she implied that an issue of unjustified termination could not arise in the 90 days. I understood that that was the intention. If I have misinterpreted the Minister I invite her to correct me, but that was my understanding of the answer. I believe it answered the member’s question, because it pointed out that that could not occur during the first 90 days of the trial period.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
Yesterday I saw a statement from Phil Twyford that “6000 employees could be subjected to the 90 day period at the stroke of a pen”. However, as an Auckland member he should know that section 108 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 makes it clear that all employees who take jobs with the Auckland Council or any related agency are to be considered for the purpose of any statute as having continuous employment. Those employees would not be able to enter into a trial period. I suggest that the member might have more luck in getting an electorate if he actually read the legislation he was protesting against.