Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

I was talking about the necessity for this bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. The reality is that most unions of any substance and any size already have as one of the requirements in their rules the fact that any strike action needs to be supported by a secret ballot. The Maritime Union has it, the rest home workers who belong to the Service and Food Workers Union have it, and the meat workers employed by Talley’s AFFCO have it in their agreements. Most of those meat workers, of course, are being locked out. Some are taking strike action, and they take strike action as a result of a secret ballot.

The proposal to have the clause that requires unions’ rules to provide for a secret ballot is the most sensible way forward. We—that is, this Parliament—do not want to get into the Incorporated Societies Act, and dictate to societies and organisations that are incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act, and have them being told what to do. This Parliament could not do that. We have hundreds of thousands of interest groups and societies—do not let this be a precedent and a start for this Parliament deciding how private organisations, collective organisations of individuals, should run themselves and conduct themselves. That is a matter for them. For trade unions, which have been in this business for well over 100 years, that is the way they have conducted themselves.

The bill as originally drafted is unnecessary. Unions and their members, who belong voluntarily to these organisations, are quite capable of deciding their rules themselves. Let it be a requirement for registration as a union that the union’s rules are proper, appropriate, and fit for purpose, and that may well include the need to have a ballot to take strike action. But members should also understand that our industrial legislation has always provided a countervailing balance, and it has always been the principle for New Zealand industrial legislation. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so if it is a requirement that workers are required to conduct a secret ballot when they take a strike, so too for the employer when they take the egregious action of locking out workers, depriving them of their income against their will; so too the employer should be bound by obligations of procedural fairness. That is provided for as well in Labour’s proposals.

This bill is unnecessary; we continue to see it as unnecessary. Unions are quite happily getting on with what limited rights they have these days anyway. That will change, of course, on the change of Government, and workers will be free once again to express their views and act appropriately and properly in the workplace, as they once did. But in the meantime this will add nothing. It is not as if, either for the member who is promoting this bill or for the party he comes from, there are not some bigger issues to deal with in this day and age. It is not just about getting married so he can take trips to Uganda, either. It is really serious stuff, important things that we need to be doing.

Trying to interfere with voluntary trade unions simply is not going to lift productivity, and it is not going to provide the better future that has been promised, either here or in Finland. We say that the member’s bill is unnecessary, but our proposals provide a sensible way forward for unions for when they are registered. Thank you.

It is just not about the cheap shot from the former leader of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, or wherever and whomever he represented—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The EPMU.

Oh, the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the “elephant union”—well, whatever. It is not about a cheap shot about me getting married and a cheap shot at my wife, because that is what it was. That is the sort of thing that I expect. We have been hearing it all day: the cheap, dirty shot. I will tell you this; I will let you in on a little secret. I went to the acting Opposition whip tonight and asked whether they would stand in the way of us going back to clause 2, and she said “No, not a problem. As long as you don’t play dirty, that’s fine.” What happens? The first speaker—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Stop putting words into her mouth.

It is very hard to put words into anybody’s mouth over there. I mean, I would have to have a million of them, because their mouths are so big. Look, the fact of the matter is that this is about democracy. He talks about freedom—the workers’ freedom. Well, I tell you what. Workers will be free if they are not bullied by the likes of Andrew Little—bullied into taking industrial action. Here is a question for the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and every other union. How many of their organisers take the pay cut—do not take wages—while their members are on strike? What about Garry Parsloe? He took the wage, all right, while his so-called comrades were out on strike.

💬 Andrew Little: I learnt everything on you from Michelle Boag.

Oh, here we go. I have seen many a union organiser take the money, take the organiser’s car, and drive around in it, while their mates and their members are on strike. Do you know which is the worst one? Which is the worst union? The Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. Its organisers drive around in a big car with a sign on the door, and it is the same with the Service and Food Workers Union. The one in Te Atatū Peninsula is always parked outside Countdown looking for a few members. It cannot get any.

Let us talk about the bullyboy tactics of that member when he was in charge of that two-bit outfit. [Interruption] That is right, oh yeah. They shivered in their boots, all right. Do you know why workers shiver in their boots? Because they do not want to take the action that they have been told to take by guys like Andrew Little. That is why. The only people who lose in a strike are workers. They are ones who do not get paid. These guys get paid—do not forget it. This is my plea to New Zealand: do not forget that workers are the ones who lose wages, not the union organisers. And, you know what, here is something else.

💬 Andrew Little: Here it comes.

That is right. If you shut up, I will tell you. The Labour Party is full of union organisers and failed teachers.

I wanted to speak to my amendment to insert new clause 5B and inject some sense back into the debate after that tirade from the member Tau Henare. But, before I do, I just want to record my pleasure that good sense has prevailed in the ports and that Ports of Auckland has agreed to go back to collective bargaining and not to contract out the workers or make them redundant, so I am very, very pleased about that. I think we will see a return to productive employment and, I hope, productive employment relationships, which is indeed what Labour’s legislation was always about. It was always about good faith, about productive employment relationships, and about mediation as a first call in disputes. But gradually what we have seen from this Government, of course, is interference in that, and that is what this bill is, too.

My amendment to insert new clause 5B is to make sure that, indeed, if this bill goes through, there is not more interference in the right of workers to have a secret ballot, which is what the member insists must happen. He insists it is about democracy, but actually what we have at the moment, thanks to this Government, is an impediment to access to a workplace. Under this Government, workers and unions have to get permission from the employer to enter the workplace. It is getting harder and harder.

In fact, Talley’s AFFCO, as everybody knows, is locked out. We are not talking about strikes here, and we are not talking about secret ballots of Talley’s shareholders, we are talking about illegally locked out workers. There are stories coming out about how the union was illegally denied access time and time again to its workers in the meat plants. By the time the union got to them, of course, management had been in their ears, had threatened them, and had put them on an individual contract.

So my amendment is to make sure that that situation is avoided, because if the member and the Government insist that there must be a secret ballot of workers before the strike is in, then, as my colleague Andrew Little says, most unions carry that out already, but they should do it in their own way according to their own rules and according to their own democratic processes. However, if the member insists on it, the union should not need to obtain consent for access to a workplace in order to hold a secret ballot, because if the employer can stand in the way of a union obtaining access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot, how on earth is the member’s objective of requiring a secret ballot before a strike going to be met? How is it going to happen? How is that the purpose?

He says it is all about democracy, crying all the rubbish that he talks about from his 30 years ago when he was the worst union organiser in New Zealand’s history—all the rubbish from that. However, accepting all of that, I am sure that the member in the chair, Tau Henare, does not want to see the provisions of his bill impeded by employers who can deny access to unions who come in, in order to carry out the requirements of his bill. [Interruption] Yes, and it will be very interesting to see what happens if an employer chooses to deny access for the purposes of holding a secret ballot.

Does that mean that the workers can just carry on and have a strike because they have been denied access to a secret ballot? Does it mean the employer has broken the law in terms of allowing a secret ballot to be held? Does it mean the union has broken the law because it has not been able to hold a secret ballot? These are things that I do not think the member has thought through.

As I said in previous discussions on this bill, we genuinely tried to assist the member to meet his objectives by doing it in a very, very simple form. That was in the previous amendment, to insert new clause 5A, which was about simply putting in unions’ rules a requirement that there must be a process for holding a secret ballot. But what his bill will do is make sure that there can be interference by employers, which there already is in places like Talley’s. It will make sure that there will be interference not only in the process of secret ballots, and challenges in the courts, tying up the courts, and compliance costs on unions like the Oceania Group workers, who are just trying to make sure that their workers, their members, who are on $13.61 an hour—11c an hour above the minimum wage; shocking—

I am pleased tonight to speak on behalf of Denise Roche, our industrial relations spokesperson. The Green Party opposes this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill in its entirety. In standing to speak for the Greens on this bill, I would like to recognise the work that has been done by my colleagues Keith Locke and Dave Clendon. When this bill went through its first reading the Greens supported it, but Keith Locke did outline concerns with the bill, and Dave Clendon outlined them again last time this bill was in the House. Those concerns have not been addressed, and now we have more concerns about the bill, so we will be opposing it. To be honest, I cannot believe this House has wasted so much time and resources—staff time, politicians’ time, time in the House and at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when more useful debates could have been had—over an amendment bill that, in effect, is a solution looking for a problem.

I am not sure what on earth possessed my esteemed colleague Tau Henare to develop such a bill when it is so completely and utterly unnecessary. It is some time since my esteemed colleague was a union official for the Clerical Workers Union, and, undoubtedly, times have moved on in the last two decades. Modern unions are now democratic. Members, rather than union officials, make the decisions around settling negotiations, and also about how the whole union is run. From having been a member of a union for many, many years, I can vouch for this. Unions—

💬 Scott Simpson: Ah, a conflict of interest.

I am not an organiser—a member. Unions are incorporated societies. They are required to act in an openly transparent and democratic fashion. Many unions already have rules that include the requirement for secret ballots on industrial disputes. What is the point in legislating to ensure a current practice becomes a current practice?

The decision to take industrial action is not one that unions or their members ever take lightly. For the union, if the strike is not widely supported, or if there is anything dodgy about the vote on it, it is likely to lose members. Unlike the industrial relations environment that existed when my esteemed colleague Tau Henare was a union organiser in the early 1980s, union membership is now voluntary. Frankly, in an environment of shrinking union membership in the private sector, particularly, no union with sane leadership is going to take the risk of acting undemocratically. From the workers’ perspective the decision to strike is also never made lightly. Strike action means loss of pay, and in an increasingly desperate job market—thanks to this Government—it is a huge risk to take strike action, because of the potential ongoing damage to the employment relationship. Strike action is an action of last resort, and, aside from health and safety reasons, it is used only when negotiations around the collective employment agreements have not been settled.

I join Labour in expressing my satisfaction in seeing the Ports of Auckland go back into negotiations, which we have seen at the end of a process of striking. It is really the only weapon in the struggle that can sometimes result from the imbalance of power between workers and the boss, and it is never undertaken on a whim or with a dodgy vote. Some of my colleagues recently spent the weekend at the picket with the Maritime Union members and their families at the Ports of Auckland. You know, they have been negotiating since September last year. Despite offering to make significant changes to provide more flexibility, including a 12-hour shift option for some workers, they have been stalled by management’s demands for more and more and more flexibility. These workers, all 300 or so of them, had a vote.

Recently I joined the striking workers at Elderslea Rest Home in Upper Hutt. You know, I know it takes a lot to get nurses and rest home workers to strike, because they care for their elderly clients and they do not want to jeopardise their well-being. Fifteen hundred of them went off the job at Oceania rest homes all over the country. These workers are asking for a cost of living pay claim of around 3 percent, with back-pay. The company, which is controlled by Australian equity firm Macquarie Global Infrastructure Funds and currently is spending millions on new facilities, is offering them 1 percent over 3 years and wants to cut overtime. These workers have been negotiating for 8 months, and 600 of those workers are on $13.61 an hour, just above the minimum wage, caring for some of our most vulnerable people. This is not about workers being greedy or unions being unscrupulous. It is about a decent living wage, and it is also about employer bullying. It is about employers seeking to bust the unions and achieve full flexibility, also known as casualisation of the workforce.

I note that this bill does not address the issue of whether the employer should have a secret ballot or even a transparent voting process before they decide to lock out workers. It is fine for the workers, but not for the bosses. Seven-hundred and sixty-two AFFCO meatworkers in provincial towns—in Moerewa, Manawatū, AFFCO Imlay in Wanganui, Horotiu, and Wairoa—have been locked out of their jobs. Like the Ports of Auckland workers, they have been fending off the bosses’ claims for more and more flexibility around rostering. The meatworkers and Talley’s AFFCO management have been negotiating their employment agreement for 18 months. The lockout is an employer tactic to get them to agree. Why is there no bill requiring companies to hold a secret ballot before locking out workers? We will not be voting for this bill. This bill does nothing to address bad-faith bargaining. In fact, it is dangerous. It opens a loophole for employers to litigate unions over ballots. This bill does not serve unions, which are the only collective voice for many people, it does not serve industrial democracy, and it does not serve workers.

I am sure that the member’s motives with the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill are honourable and that his objectives, which I perceive as to ensure democracy in unions voting to strike or not to strike, are genuine. But if so, I am not convinced that the bill will assist that, and indeed the reverse may well be the case.

New Zealand First would wish to be even-handed in these matters, not necessarily wishing to promote the interests of either the unions or the employers and their organisations. However, New Zealand First will oppose the bill in its entirety, simply because we are not quite sure, notwithstanding what the member has said—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It doesn’t surprise me. In the pocket of the Labour Party.

—and what he is saying now, what the problem is to fix, and indeed how this bill would fix it. Our conclusion is that the bill is deeply flawed in concept and in purpose.

When you think about the bill and the way it goes about whatever its objective is, you need to consider what the interests of democracy require, first of all, when voting needs to be in secret, such as in parliamentary elections, and, second, when voting should not be secret, such as in Parliament itself. In this case union members are voting as a group on a decision to strike—something that affects them all, and that they do as a group in a collegial sort of way. Because it is not a private decision, unlike a vote in a parliamentary election, and because it is a group decision, this requires collegiality. It requires group discussion, in which it is proper and constructive for members to know why and whether another member is voting one way or the other. I think that is actually a very constructive thing to happen. There is no need for secrecy in that kind of situation. In fact, the reverse is the case; it is better if it is not secret. That is better for democracy; that is better for group action.

No reason is given by the member or by any member opposite why a secret ballot is necessary for a democratic decision to strike. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report simply refers to the consistency with the principal Act. That is hardly a reason, and certainly not one that New Zealand First would recognise as such.

It is not necessarily always in the interests of democracy for voting to be secret, especially in private and voluntary organisations where secret ballots can lead to vote fixing, and auditing is impracticable. Moreover, it is not the business of the Government to dictate the manner in which private and voluntary organisations should conduct their internal affairs. This is not yet a police State, notwithstanding National’s steps towards it. Otherwise, would this Government not require secret ballots for boards of directors and shareholder meetings in private companies? What another member said is quite correct: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But here we see not an even-handed approach; here we see a prejudicial one. A democratic society requires that unions be free, like all other private and voluntary organisations, to run their own affairs, to allow their members to make their own rules of governance, not Big Brother and not some tyrannical Government.

In summary, first, there is no need for secret ballots for a democratically run organisation where group or collegial decision-making is needed. Secondly, a decision whether or not to make ballots secret belongs to the members of the organisation, and not to those members opposite and not to any Government in this country. That is a private matter. It is not a Government matter. If the National Party thinks it should be making decisions on behalf of private organisations in this country, it had better look back to its principles, because as far as I can see it is not following them. Thirdly, the principles that are applicable in the case of union members’ voting methods are these: freedom of members to make their own rules; voluntary membership, which we certainly agree with; collegiality in decision making and voting; collective responsibility; and openness and transparency as between the members voting. None of those principles are reflected in this bill. The bill will achieve next to nothing except another step in excessive government and excessive regulation—something that I thought this Government was opposed to, but sadly it is not. New Zealand First will certainly oppose this bill, and every part of it.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause after clause 4:

5A When society entitled to be registered as union

Section 14(1) is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (d):

“(e) the society’s rules include a requirement that a secret ballot of its members who are employed by the same or different employers (as the case may be) and who would become a party to the strike be held before any strike is undertaken.”