Our team of HR and ER experts collectively have over 250 years’ experience doing the hard yards around anything to do with employment relations and conflict resolution.
We often reflect that many of the complicated employment matters we are required for start off small. However, they escalate because of a natural tendency by employees – and very often their managers – to either ignore the issue and hope it goes away, or to second guess themselves. The downside of this human response is that the organisation misses an all-important opportunity to de-escalate or resolve concerns by way of education or early intervention. 
In this context, we have considered the value of introducing an employee Speak-Up channel or whistleblower line that employers can offer to their workforce. A Speak-Up line is a free and confidential line that will be made available by the employer to all personnel, whereby they can raise concerns about fraud and other possible (serious) misconduct. 
In our experience, there are two drawbacks to the traditional Speak-Up model. Firstly, they are generally underutilised by employees who lack the confidence to use them and fear that they will be judged as either a time waster, a snitch, or a trouble maker.  Secondly, managing confidential allegations can present as a minefield for the employer, especially if these involve allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment.
Ultimately, to support a positive culture and to be effective, a SpeakUp channel must be built on a relationship of mutual trust, and the employee must have complete confidence that their concern will be taken on merit and managed by the recipient, even when the outcome may not be shared with them.
At Three60 Consult, we offer a customised Speak Up channel. This is a safe way for employees to share concerns, workplace-culture observations, or make complaints about anything from interpersonal conflict, fraud, bullying and harassment or toxicity in a free and frank manner without fear of judgement.
It is a constructive platform and allows the employer to get ahead of below-the-line behaviours before they corrode organisational culture and wellbeing. 
What we offer:

If this sounds like something your organisation would benefit from, get in touch with one of our associates today.

The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) have found that resignations resulting from concerns of personal safety in the workplace and a failure to address these concerns can result in constructive dismissal, paired with a hefty price tag.

In this case, a 17-year-old employee resigned after just 19 days of employment, stating they did not feel safe to return to work. The employee was also not provided with an employment agreement, despite requesting one. The Authority therefore considered what a reasonable notice period for the role is, given the absence of an employment agreement.

In their second week of work, the employee noticed a change in behaviour towards them. The employee described it as a ‘switch being flipped’, their boss began to rage at them, to the point that they would be terrified. They were physically intimidating and threatening.

When matters did not improve from the next week, the employee decided that they would resign for their safety. The employer tried to dissuade them, adding that they could show them how to do things the way their boss liked, and that they were just having a bad week. However, the employee believed things were too far gone.

 

The Authority applied the test of justification, considering whether the employer’s actions, and how they acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the incident occurred.

The Authority found that as the matter was brought to the attention of the employer, they had the opportunity to address the situation, however failed to do so. This breached the duty to provide a safe workplace environment.

It was determined that it is reasonably foreseeable that if concerns around personal safety were not being addressed, that the employee would not be prepared to work under those conditions.

Based on the above, the claim of unjustified and constructive dismissal was made out.

The employee was awarded compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings of $16,000 – a significant amount. Loss of wages for no contract or notice period being given were also awarded along with other lost remuneration. The total payable amount to the employee was $25,035.

This case highlights the importance of providing a safe and healthy work environment for employees, and to address and act on situations that are brought to your attention as an employer, so as not to breach your duty of good faith.

It also shows the importance of ensuring you provide your employees with employment agreements and keep accurate records.

In this case, it wasn’t necessarily what the employer did, but what they did not do, which breached their duty of good faith.

 

Well, we are off to an interesting start to 2023, for those of us interested in minimum entitlements legislation.

An Employment Court decision has ruled that the owners of four alcohol retail stores are personally liable to pay five former employees wages and holiday pay, totalling $259,685. The owner of the businesses has also been banned from employing anyone for a year.

Employment Court cases can be lengthy. However, in this case, the Labour Inspectorate and the Respondents filed a joint memorandum and agreed a statement of facts in the Court, which Judge Kathryn Beck considered in making her orders.

Nikhil Himalaya and owners, Ravinder and Anuradha Arora, accepted the breaches of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Holidays Act 2003. They failed to pay wages at no less than the minimum wage, incorrectly calculated holiday pay at termination, and failed to maintain holiday records.

As part of the consequence, the Judge also ordered a banning order against owner Ravinder Arora for 12 months, which means that he will not be able to employ or be involved in employing anyone for a year.

The Inspectorate said that, as there were no records, they relied on technology to verify the evidence provided by the former employees. This type of data analysis will be a method used by Labour Inspectorates in the future, where records are not maintained or cannot be produced.

What is interesting is that there were no penalties ordered against the Respondents. It is usual for the Inspectorate to seek penalties where breaches of minimum entitlements occur and the Inspectorate is reluctant to resolve matters, even in mediation, because of the penalties sought. It may have been that the banning order, together with the recovery of $259,685 in wages and holiday pay, was seen as a reasonable sanction for the breach or there may have been other mitigating factors considered by the Labour Inspectorate when agreeing on the joint memorandum.

Although, in this writers view, while most employers invest in processes and payroll systems to ensure their employees receive their minimum statutory entitlements, there still exists employers who, for whatever reason, breach minimum standards. The Courts provide a very strong incentive for compliance with financial sanctions and orders that prevent employers from employing staff, and this case highlights that.

Unfortunately, there are also good employers who believe they are complying, but just get it wrong. These employers fall into the same non-compliance category and can also face hefty penalty sanctions.

No employer should set and forget their payroll system. An annual check to ensure compliance with minimum statutory entitlements should be part of every wise employers plan to protect their business.

Three60 Consult’s payroll and minimum entitlement review service has been very busy with employers wanting a review to ensure that their payroll systems are calculating wages and holiday pay correctly and that the systems in place meet their legal obligations.

Tasneem Begum and I are both ex MBIE Labour Inspectors and in undertaking these reviews, we usually find areas of non-compliance, even where reliable payroll systems are being used. Because the reality is they do not accurately account for the different types of working patterns. We are then able to assist the employer in remedying the breach and ensuring their processes are compliant. So, when the Labour Inspector comes knocking, you can rest assured you have got things right.

If this is an area you need assistance with, get in touch with our Minimum Entitlements team today.

Lynn Booker, Senior Associate 

Last December the Fair Pay Agreements Act come into force. This Act enables unions to negotiate the employment terms and conditions for whole industries or roles across multiple industries at once.

Many businesses across New Zealand don’t realise the wide reaching implications this will have for them. Businesses that have little or no union involvement, or consider they are paying their staff well above minimum rates often think an FPA will have little effect on them. This is unlikely to be true and if you are a business owner, manager, or HR professional, it’s probably time to reconsider and prepare.

Why should you care?

FPAs are not just about wage rates – they cover multiple aspects of pay. There are minimum conditions that are required to be discussed during bargaining and conditions that must be included in an agreement. Mandatory conditions are:

The only parties at the negotiating table will be the unions and any employer associations that seek to be part of the negotiations. No individual employers will have a seat at the table, but the outcome of the negotiations will become the minimum requirements that apply to every employer across New Zealand who has an employee covered.

Many employers will not even know if they have employees covered because the coverage clauses are likely to be broad and the system of notification is full of holes. Nevertheless, you will be in breach of legislation if you’re found not to be complying. There is a risk that Labour Inspectors will come knocking and once you’re found in breach, the backpay and fines will likely roll in.

The FPA process is likely to be difficult because it is essentially forcing competitors to work together. All employers that fall within the relevant industry or occupations will, as a minimum, have the same terms and conditions applied to them, regardless of size, location, and demographics.

Moreover, if you are not involved in any of the FPA process, you won’t have a say in what these rates are.

It’s time to be preparing. There are decisions to be made about the level of involvement you want in the process and how your interests will be best looked after as you don’t get a direct seat at the table. Without doing this, larger businesses or competitors could be effectively making decisions that you will have to live with.

Four applications have currently been made, covering industries such as hospitality, bus/coach transport, and supermarkets. These applications can cover many different roles. One of the difficulties with FPAs is the definition of what is included within a particular industry. For example, receptionists are part of the coverage claimed under the hospitality FPA application. The definition of receptionist broadly refers to someone who meets and greets guests. Do you have a receptionist? You may just be covered! Staying aware of what roles in your organisation may be covered is important so you can consider your next move.

How can we help?

We are across all the FPA details and are assisting our clients to understand the potential impacts for them, build strategies to best protect their interests in this process, and representing their views to an appropriate Employer Association. We have a team of highly experienced and skilled negotiators who regularly bargain and engage with unions.

If you would like to know more or seek advice on your particular situation, give us a call.

A recent case by the Authority has warned against a rushed summary dismissal process even if the conduct or behaviour by an employee is serious misconduct.

An employee working at a Club was “instantly dismissed” after the Employer became aware of the employee retaining a club members’ food and drinks voucher and used it to purchase food and drinks for his own personal consumption as well as taking an opened bottle of wine from the club premises. 

While neither party disputes that the conduct of the Employee was inappropriate, the Authority was tasked with considering whether or not the summary dismissal was justified and procedurally fair. 

The Authority heard how the employer invited the employee to meet to discuss “a couple of incidences” that had come to their attention, and how during the meeting CCTV images of the conduct was shown. After asking for, and hearing, an explanation from the employee, the employer told the employee that they needed to have a meeting the next day and that the employee should bring their uniform as they would more than likely be dismissed.

The parties dispute the events at the second meeting, although it was found more likely than not the Employer had considered dismissal was the only option and that this was conveyed during the meeting in some way or manner. The day after this meeting, a letter was provided to the employee affirming that there would be a summary dismissal for misconduct and that the conduct was found to be wilful or deliberate, dishonest. 

As the allegation was one of dishonesty, the Authority commented that they would’ve expected a very careful and well document investigation to proceed and that in this case, the investigation ‘fell at the first hurdle’ by the employer not providing information about the allegations and evidence in their written invitation. 

Although it was reasonable to categorise the conduct as “potential dishonesty” when the employer first became aware of the conduct, the Authority found that the employer did not approach the matter with an informed and open mind. The Authority found that a fair and reasonable employer could have approached this issue with more caution and the decision to dismiss was unnecessarily rushed, which meant there was not a procedurally fair process. 

It found that the summary dismissal of the employee was substantively justified on the grounds that he engaged in serious misconduct involving the repeated, deliberate and calculated use of what was not his property.  However, as the procedural deficiencies had “robbed” the employee of the opportunity to seek legal advice and reflect on his actions, it was found that the dismissal was unjustifiable and the employee was entitled to remedies. 

It was a case from thirty five years ago (BW Bellis Ltd (t/a The Coachman Inn) v Canterbury Hotel etc IUOW) which found that a dismissal could be found to be a lawful exercise of an employer’s right but “unjustifiable” by virtue of the way in which the matter was handled. 

This case is a good reminder that employers must ensure that any investigative/disciplinary process is procedurally fair and substantively justified before making a decision such as summary dismissal or taking any other forms of disciplinary action. 

As we are coming into Summer and the holiday period, organisations are having their Christmas and social functions, and colleagues may be catching up after work for a few drinks. ‘Tis the season to be jolly…But is it also the season of sexual harassment?

A recent report came out this year showing that 30% of workers have experienced sexual harassment in the past five years (Human Rights Commission). The Human Rights Act 1993 defines sexual harassment as ‘any unwelcome or offensive sexual behaviour that is repeated or is serious enough to have a harmful effect. The law defines sexual harassment to include many different behaviours.

Sexual Harassment in Summer

Sexual harassment seems to be particularly prevalent in Summer and several factors have been suggested as causing seasonal victimization. This includes holidays, change in attire, weather change, and the increase in daylight hours. Sunshine increases serotonin levels, which may cause your coworkers to feel somewhat friskier than usual.

Our Senior Associate, Maureen Glassey, comments on the seasonality of crime and sexual harassment from her experience as a former investigator in the Police.

She states that most cops will tell you that crime is both situational and seasonal – night shifts with a full moon always seem busier and in summer, the incidents of sexual offending seem to peak. “Moving away from policing and into employment relations, I notice that there seems to be a similar trend with harassment cases. Maybe it is the longer days, warmer weather, or perhaps the increase in social events. It is not always related to the weather, but perhaps the fact that that summer collides with the end of the year, the ‘zero-tolerance’ of these behaviours is reduced and people start to get away with more because it has been a long, hard year.” Thus, not only do behaviours in the workplace start to slip, but these behaviours also make appearances during work functions.

Sexual Harassment in Work-Functions

Noting the spike in harassment during this season in particular, it is important for employers to remember that their duty of care and obligations to provide a safe and healthy environment extend to work-related events and functions.

In preparation for work-related events and functions, employers should be taking the time to evaluate the risks involved and communicate behavioural expectations to staff prior to the function taking place. They should also consider any pre-existing policies and whether they are applicable in the instance that any incidents occur during the function.

Addressing and/or acting on these issues requires robust policies and processes. Now is a great time to either update or implement policies for such events outlining standards of behaviour, especially around health & safety, bullying & harassment, and drugs and alcohol at work.

While sexual harassment cases often occur, especially around this time of the year, employees are less likely to raise a complaint, or even identify the scenario as sexual harassment, where there is a high prevalence – a culture that fosters these kinds of behaviours, deeming it ‘normal’. It may also be an underlying culture within the organisation that the employer is not aware of.

Sexual Harassment and Culture

Employers must be mindful of their wider culture and make appropriate assessment as to whether their organisation has the systems and protections in place that allow employees to feel safe to report harassment and for it to be investigated.

This means having in place robust policies, but also ensuring the organisation has active processes and practices that are supported from the top down, which will help employees to view them as effective and feel more comfortable in speaking up. Propensity to name is typically higher when employees perceive that their HR department supports a climate of naming.

For most harassment and bullying allegations however, a complaints process and pathway for responding to these allegations is not enough. It usually places the burden on the victim to come forward and as mentioned above, people are unlikely to do so where a prevalence of sexual harassment within the culture exists. Many workers have said they wanted better support, preferably from someone independent looking into workplace culture and policies.

At Three60 Consult, we conduct independent investigations and pulse checks to help identify where any issues lie and provide tailored recommendations. We can also create or review policies and processes. If this is something your organisation needs assistance with, get in touch with one of our associates today.

 

By Kayla Neems

Although the COVID restrictions in NZ have been removed, many people are still working from home some, if not most, days of the week. Remote/hybrid working has become the new normal for many roles and may even be an expectation from employees. 

 

A recent Remote Work Report from Employment Hero has shown that 48% of employees would consider quitting their jobs if their employers forced them back into the office full-time. A large motivator for kiwis wanting to work remotely is that it reduces some of the pressures of travel cost and time, which are increasingly on the rise. Remote working seems to have shifted from a precautionary response to COVID, to something that alleviates the anxiety or stress around finances and living costs. 

 

So, we know that remote working has a great appeal and is something many employers may need to keep in attracting and retaining workers. But what about for those who are required or choose to work on site? 

 

Something I have seen a bit of talk about recently is the question around whether remote workers should be paid less than their city colleagues, and whether this could be considered fair compensation. Some organisations are starting to pay higher salaries for workers in certain regions to recognise the cost of living. 

 

That begs the question: Should organisations base an employee’s remuneration on the value an employee brings to the business or should an employee’s remuneration differ from others based on the employee’s work preference (i.e. WFH) or location/homebase? 

 

Benefits

When approached and applied well, setting different wage and salary levels dependent on work preference/location can benefit organisations. 

 

Economists in the USA have argued that offering remote working opportunities as a substitute for pay rises has lowered wage-growth pressures, slowing this wage-price spiral of increasing inflation. It has potential to lower costs for businesses and provide incentive for people to come into the office, taking some of the pressure off travel costs. 

In effect, with people feeling less of the financial pressures of traveling into work most days, this raises collegiality, social capital, and knowledge management within organisations. 

 

It also promotes employee retention and employer branding. 

 

Risks

However, Employers should consider this pay strategy with caution as it is not without criticism.

 

When Google announced to employees their intent to implement pay according to proximity to the office, employees expressed dissatisfaction. 

 

As the pandemic has shown us, remote working is just as productive as working from the office, if not more. Looking at remote working as a ‘substitute’ for pay rises creates an image of remote work becoming less of a perk and more of something we pay or have a trade-off for.

 

However productive remote working can be, this is assuming that workers already have the developed skills and little training is required. 

 

Questions then to consider are why we are doing this, what will it achieve (pros and cons), and what are the outcomes we are aiming to achieve? Consideration should be given to the consequences of disrupting an equal and inclusive environment.

 

Granted that a lot of this application and talk is based on America and other larger countries who base their pay around more expensive cities and commutability from those cities, it still raises a good question and thought to turn our minds to, especially when it comes to bargaining and remuneration strategy. So, does it make sense to apply this logic and thinking in NZ? In the end, it does come down to a company’s individual circumstances. They should be looking a location vs value-based compensation strategies, and at local market rates and cost of living vs industry and competitive market rates.

 

To avoid disadvantaging remote workers, employers could factor in compensation like utility subsidies or allowances for use of their home office space. 

 

Should Employers be evaluating their remuneration strategy to accommodate for this?

This topic raises the question of what is fair and reasonable, especially in relation to these new forms of work.  This is a controversial topic and one that seems to have different answers and opinions depending on the way you look at it. 

 

Three60 Consult created a poll asking people whether they thought it would be fair to pay less for remote work. Surely enough, 80% of people voted ‘no’. This included a range of responses from both employers and employees. 

 

We then reframed the question and asked whether people thought it was reasonable to expect to be compensated for travelling into work and living in an expensive city. Interestingly, many people (70%) voted ‘yes’. The question then becoming, ‘are we paying less for remote workers or are we compensating their counterpart for travel and living costs’?

 

Of course, this matter is more complex than framing it into these two simple questions, but this gives us a good idea and indication of where people’s minds lie.

 

The question ‘if remote workers are more productive and make more money for the business then why should they be paid less?’ often comes up. And that they may be reducing business expenses by not being in the office. So then there becomes the argument that remote workers should be compensated for their at-home setup and expenses. Also, that because a remote employee can reduce the costs to a business, that profits should be distributed out to them. Although, this argument currently lacks a focus on the growth and developments of knowledge and skills that can come from working with others. 

 

 

Employers need to think, ‘are we paying less for remote workers, or are we compensating those who come into the workplace for travel expenses? What kind of expenses do our remote workers have and what compensation could they reasonably expect?’

 

At the end of the day, it becomes a pay strategy/remuneration structure application of location vs value-based, and for what expenses or components are we ’compensating’ for. These are all important things for employers to consider especially coming into bargaining and with FPA’s coming into force. 

 

If you need assistance with your bargaining and pay strategies, get in touch with one of our associates today. 

 

 By Kayla Neems

It’s time for New Zealand’s media industry to make way for the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which introduces a collective bargaining framework that will allow contractors in the Screen Industry to be covered by minimum terms and conditions of work across their occupation and within specific projects with production companies.

This Bill is a stake in the ground from the Government, who have introduced this Bill alongside the recently passed Fair Pay Agreements Bill, with the intention to create new workplace relations frameworks that allow workers to band together to negotiate terms and conditions industry-wide with the aid of employment law resources.

Considering that contractors haven’t been afforded such extensive protections and resources by employment or case law, this Bill also indicates a new “normal” is coming. Even contractors will have access to minimum terms and conditions, blurring the traditional lines between contractor vs employee and potentially causing wider implications for businesses, including those in the screen industry.

Why was the Bill introduced?

In 2010 the “Hobbit Law” i.e. Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010, was introduced to exclude film production workers from being considered employees. This prevented workers from challenging their employment status of ‘independent contractor’, being able to collectively bargain, or remedy any contracting disputes through the employment relations’ institutions.

The Hobbit Law was introduced after the infamous case, Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited, sparked fear within the industry of large-scaled strike action amongst workers on the Hobbit Films, putting at risk the commercial interests at play.

When Labour was elected in 2018, the Film Industry Working Group (FIWG) was formed and tasked with coming up with recommendations to reform the area this area of law.

How Will the Bill work?

The Bill, once enacted, will allow contractors on computer-generated games, films, and programmes (“screen production worker”) to participate in collective bargaining either at an occupational level and/or with a single production/business.

Employees are not covered by this Bill and the previous Hobbit Law is partially upheld with the Bill stating that a screen production worker cannot invoke section 6(2) of the ERA 2000 to determine whether they are an employee. However, screen production workers who are employees will be able to utilise the FPA Bill to access this tier of bargaining framework, and the claims by contractors in this industry would reduce because of the new resources and rights afforded to them – which is discussed below.

It also introduces minimum terms and conditions which must be included not only in any negotiated occupational or enterprise level agreements, but also in any individual agreements between screen workers and the production/company from December 2022. These terms and conditions are:

  • The agreement must be in writing and include the duty of good faith
  • Businesses must follow process rules for making and varying individual contracts
  • Individual contracts must contain mandatory terms, such as such as rates of pay, entitlement to breaks, the extent to which public holidays are recognised, hours of work, procedural requirements for raising complaints related to bullying/harassment in workplace, access to dispute resolution processes and more.
    • Organisations will have 12 months to enact these mandatory terms
  • Terms must not be worse than any applicable collective contract (once they have been negotiated)
  • Engagers can’t cancel contracts in retaliation for workers exercising their rights

Although this law is based on pre-existing employment requirements, the bargaining at occupational-level introduces a new process aligned with the Government’s intent to ensure parties are dealing with each other in good faith.

Currently, workers who are not employees are excluded from the Employment Relations Authority, which has no jurisdiction to deal with matters outside of an employment relationship. However,  under the new Act, a contractor party can make an application to the Employment Relations Authority. The Authority must, through a series of steps, determine if there is sufficient support for collective bargaining within the occupation and determine the process for ratification.

Bargaining at an enterprise level is more aligned to traditional collective bargaining between employers and unions, as there is no requirement to go the Authority. Enterprise agreements cannot, however, go below the minimum terms set out in any applicable occupation-level collective.

Once a collective is ratified, any relevant individual contracts entered into within 6 months of the ratification date, will need to meet or exceed the minimum terms in the collective contract. Any existing individual contracts must comply with the collective contract within 12 months of ratification.

For some screen production workers, they may be covered by two or more enterprise-level contracts in respect of the same work. In such a case, the worker may choose which enterprise contract applies and notify the production company of their choice in writing.

What Will the Impacts be on the Media Industry?

For businesses in the media industry, this Bill is likely to impact them in the following ways:

  • The wide scope of the “screen industry worker” definition and limited exemptions mean, that a large amount of production companies and businesses will be covered and open to bargaining.
  • The new terms and conditions required to be implemented by 30 December will be a timely/costly process for media businesses to ensure compliance in time.
  • The ability for there to be multiple collectives at play when starting a new project, due to workers belonging to different agreements depending on their occupation, will increase administrative costs.
  • While businesses will be protected from strike action due to industry action being prohibited and can withhold consent to participate in enterprise-level bargaining, it is likely that businesses in the media industry will be required to access and utilise the dispute resolution services under the employment relations’ framework to ensure good faith is complied with.
  • Employees in the screen industry may choose to utilise the FPA to initiate industry-wide bargaining to be able to level up their terms and conditions of employment, opening up businesses to more bargaining.

Just another version of a Fair Pay Agreement?

As discussed above, the occupational-level bargaining also shares the same principles as the FPA’s industry-wide bargaining. It is anticipated that businesses who are covered by these large-scale worker coverage agreements will have to navigate the following:

  • Being covered by an occupational-level/industry-wide collective even though a business has not participated in bargaining and (for screen companies) their workers are not “employees.”
  • Being mindful about how interests will be represented in bargaining when there will be multiple other interests to navigate from other businesses/parties.
  • Using the Employment relations’ institutions to resolve disputes and have input on bargaining processes, which may result in lengthy and costly planning and results. Also, resulting in the added consequence of these processes becoming delayed due to demand for these resources.

Wider Implications?

The Screen Industry Bill has blurred the traditional line between contractors and employees by allowing contractors to have access to employment relations’ frameworks (i.e. bargaining, dispute resolution, mandatory terms which are based on employment law).

If the Government uses the framework of this Bill to create similar Bills that cover other contractor dominant industries, we will likely see the following trends emerge for workplace relations:

  • Union/representatives negotiating terms for an agreement that mirror the minimum statutory entitlements as set out in employment law i.e. require that screen workers are paid T1.5 for public holidays, ability to take paid time for sickness etc.
  • A lower number of claims in the Authority or Employment Court as to whether a worker is classified as an employee under s6, due to contractors becoming entitled to minimum terms and conditions. In the case of screen workers, these contractors are also specifically excluded from taking a s6 claim, therefore this may potentially be introduced in provisions for other industries.
  • Whether the resources in the employment space will change, as dispute resolution services and the Authority will begin to get more involved in bargaining based discussions than perhaps previously
  • Flexibility that is usually provided by contract for service agreements becoming limited as businesses become bonded to collective agreements, resulting in businesses choosing to go back to employment law and use fixed term agreements or other employment agreement options to minimise operational costs

This new legislation will be one to watch alongside the Fair Pay Agreement Bill, as it will be interesting to see how Unions begin to formulate their claims and whether or not businesses will have to be dynamic in how they manage their workforce.

 

By Madeline Wrigley, Business Partner