10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does she agree with the Minister of Labour, who, when asked about someone on the unemployment benefit being referred by Work and Income to a job with a 90-day trial period, said “If they do not want to avail themselves of that job opportunity and that trial period then they do not have to”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
In context, yes. We cannot force anyone to take a job.
Would it be possible for Work and Income to cut that person’s benefit if they did not want to avail themselves of a trial period, in which an employee can be fired within 90 days, with no reason given and no right to an unjustified dismissal claim?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
The guidelines on this are very clear, and I quote from the Work and Income website: “A person claiming unemployment benefit is required to be actively seeking full-time work. If an employer offered suitable employment that requires an employment trial in the agreement or contract, that employment is treated the same as any other suitable employment.”
How voluntary is the 90-day trial period for someone referred to a job by Work and Income, considering that its policy allows it to cut that person’s benefit if he or she does not take the job?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
We want to see New Zealanders in work. Just in the last week or two I have heard members from the other side saying that more than 2,000 New Zealanders lined up for jobs at a supermarket. I think that tells us that they do want to work, and they want to step up and take every opportunity they possibly can, and we certainly support them in that. New Zealanders would see this policy as very fair.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked how voluntary the 90-day period is, and I did not get anything near an answer to that question.
Mr SPEAKERTo be quite honest, I thought that the member’s question was answered in the previous answer given, and that the member, in her further supplementary question, was asking for exactly what the Minister had just told her. I think the member has already received the answer. It is not as though she has not received the answer.
Is it possible for an employee who is dismissed under the 90-day trial period to then face a 13-week disqualification period from Work and Income because a case manager believes that the employee was dismissed for misconduct reasons, even though the employee cannot test the validity of that dismissal through an unjustifiable dismissal claim?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
The guidelines on that are fairly clear. The only time there is a stand-down period within the 90 days—if there is a trial period—is if Work and Income feels it has evidence of fraud or serious misconduct. If Work and Income does not have evidence of that, then it issues the unemployment benefit. If that evidence comes to light later because the police prosecute or for some other reason, then Work and Income can insist that the unemployment benefit that the person received during that period be paid back.