Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill

The Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It requires close consideration. I will collect my thoughts to speak about this important topic. We can take this light-heartedly, but this is actually very important for the 350,000 workers in this country who belong to unions, and for the many thousands of workers who are in dispute with their employers at the moment, sometimes—on most occasions—totally unnecessarily. It is very pleasing to see that the port workers in the Ports of Auckland and their employer have today reached a tentative settlement before an Employment Court judge by which they can return to work. The employer will abandon its silly plans to contract out, disempower them, and drive down their wages.

That is a great victory, but those workers went through an extraordinary struggle to get to that point—against all the opprobrium, the criticism, the comments from the right, and the comments from the mainstream editorials that have been deeply opposed to what those workers have stood for. But those workers stood up for what they believed in. They stood up against an extraordinary power and extraordinarily powerful interests. They did it. They voted for strike action, they saw it through, and they have defeated one of the most iniquitous and insidious attacks on workers’ rights.

Once again, the waterside workers of this country have broken through, have set an example for the rest of the New Zealand workforce, and they hold their banner high. They do that because they are free to do that. They are free to belong to their union. They are free to make their decisions and their choices. They have done that, and they have achieved justice. I am confident they will achieve the ultimate end and they will keep those jobs—and they will be well-paid jobs and efficient jobs. It will be an efficient, effective, and flexible workforce like they have at the moment. But, most important, they will retain their dignity and their pride. That is what every worker wants. It is actually what every employer wants.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! We are debating clause 6, which has the title “Meaning of strike”. The member can make the sorts of comments he is making, but he has to tie them in to the meaning of clause 6. This is not an open debate. The member should be debating clause 6.

💬 Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe it is clause 7 we are looking at at the moment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh, yes—clause 7. I do apologise.

I thought it was clause 7.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It was my mistake.

I thought I was debating clause 7. My comments were completely relevant to clause 7. Having said that, we on this side of the Chamber are sitting in jubilation and elation because it has been a great day for the working people of New Zealand. The most brutal struggle for working people has seen the workers victorious. They have stood united; they remain undefeated. That is why it is easy to get confused between clause 6 and clause 7. I am at sixes and sevens tonight—that is indisputable—but now we are focused on clause 7. We are very clear about what it is, and it is very important.

Today demonstrates, above all, the importance of workers who are free to make their choice and, most important, free to run their union as they see fit. They make their decisions. That is what voluntary unionism is about. It is a very powerful force. That is why National Governments hate it, because they hate working people taking control of their situation. They hate the idea that when working people get together they form their own wisdom and sometimes they stand up.

The important thing about voluntary unions is that workers are free to come and go, and the port workers have stayed, they have stuck at it, and they have stuck with their union. They have stuck with each other, and that is what it is about. That is why this clause is so unnecessary. That is why we just do not need it. You just do not need to add compliance requirement upon compliance requirement for there to be a secret ballot. Ask those workers how they feel about the decisions they took. Ask them how they feel about their union. They are sticking together. They are very proud. Then go and ask the meatworkers who are fighting an even more brutal struggle against Talley’s. Talley’s—totally unnecessarily, after barely 10 hours of negotiations—locked those workers out.

I just want to clear up a few things for New Zealand First.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: You’ll be lucky.

Yes, I might be lucky, but given the speeches in the Chamber tonight from New Zealand First, I think it does need some help. This is not about allowing organisations out there to flout what I consider to be a democratic process. If a person in any situation—whether it is right or wrong—wishes to make a decision to withdraw his or her labour, then surely to goodness—

💬 Andrew Little: They should do it on their own, Tau—that’s right.

No—surely to goodness you would allow that person the comfort of making the decision without fear or favour, regardless of—

💬 Andrew Little: They have it already.

No, I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the pure and simple reason of democracy, which we afford everybody else in this country at an election—

💬 Andrew Little: And they get it.

Well, of course they do. So why is it any different for a person withdrawing their labour?

💬 Andrew Little: The tie’s only light blue, Tau—you can still come back.

Oh, OK. I am not getting into any of this rubbish about the best union organiser or the worst union organiser. Let us get down to some tintacks. It is about democracy.

💬 Andrew Little: That’s right.

Finally, somebody from that side says that that is right; it is about democracy. Why is it that the union is so fearful of giving somebody a secret ballot? Why is it?

💬 Andrew Little: Because it’s already there, Tau.

Oh, it is already there. Well, it is not already there. It is not already there, because there are some unions that do not have it—that do not have it. All we are doing is codifying what the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union already has for its members. So if it is good enough for them, why is it not good enough to have in a piece of legislation that if you are going to go on strike, you have a secret ballot? If you win, you win; if you do not, you do not.

We are not talking about whether a strike is the right thing to do; we are talking about the ability of somebody to withdraw their labour. It is their labour; it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour, it is not the union’s labour. It is their labour. Make no mistake—make no mistake—the bleating about the situation at the Ports of Auckland. This is what happened tonight. They have got back into negotiations. That is it. The wharfies did not win. The Ports of Auckland did not win. The people of Auckland now see that both organisations are sitting down and negotiating, like everybody expected to—like everybody expected to. Because at the end of the day the belligerent union, the guys who run around in their cars and get paid while everybody else is on strike and is losing their pay—

💬 Andrew Little: The members on the picket line.

Oh, they do not like it. They just do not like it. The fact of the matter is this is about individual freedom—individual freedom to cover your hand while you are making a decision. That is what it is all about. I must say that Andrew Little has had one secret ballot in his life, and he lost that one up the country. So, there we go.

Well, it seems like it is left for me to inject some sense back into the debate around clause 7. I have an amendment on this clause, and I am really, really happy to talk about the thing that the member Tau Henare keeps insisting on, which is democracy. On the one hand he wants to impose National Party democracy on a bunch of workers who choose to withdraw their labour—that is right; they choose to withdraw their labour—but he does not want to balance up the scorecard. So the situation is that workers will be required to have a secret ballot by the member’s bill. That provision will be able to be enforced by employers in a court of law, which is interference in democracy and democratic processes, actually. But on the other hand it is not balanced. It is biased against one party in the collective employment agreement relationship.

So my amendment to clause 7 is to add a new section, which would require shareholders to hold a secret ballot before they imposed a lockout. What is a lockout? It is the opposite to a strike. It is where an employer can say to its workers, its employees—like it has done in the situation of Talley’s and 1,000 of its meatworkers—“We are not going to allow you to come to work. We are not going to pay you to come to work until you are starved into submission—until you agree to our demands.” So it is the opposite. There is a balancing part of the Employment Relations Act: there is the right to strike, and there is the right to lock out. What this member wants to do is give privilege to one side—in other words, the employers. So he is saying on the one hand that workers must have a secret ballot. As my colleague and others have already said, most of them do, and they do it through their processes—through their processes. As democratic unions, it is up to them to decide how to do it. However, if the member insists on doing this, he should even up the balance.

His Minister of Labour likes to talk about balance in the employment relationship—having balance between employers and employees. My amendment would provide that. It would provide that if Mr Talley and the Talley family decided they were going to lock out their 1,000 workers, they would have to have a secret ballot of their shareholders before that lockout could take place. What is wrong with that? I ask the member in the chair, the Hon Tau Henare, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with having a balance? If he keeps insisting it is about democracy, why is democracy on one side but not on the other? Why is he not considering this very, very reasonable amendment that I am proposing?

The other thing I wanted to say about the port workers situation is that, actually, what we have seen tonight is, yeah, sure, they are back in negotiations, but do you know why? It is because a court has decided, under the Employment Relations Act—which Labour brought in and this Government has continued to interfere with, and which is based on good-faith bargaining and fair dealing—

💬 Andrew Little: Mutual relationships.

—and mutual relationships of trust and mediation as the first port of call—that the port company has not met those provisions. So thank goodness for the former Labour Government and the Employment Relations Act, and may the Minister of Labour and this Government not get their grubby hands further on the Employment Relations Act, as they are planning to do. They are planning to weaken collective bargaining even further. They are planning to make it harder for workers.

This provision by this member will make it harder for members to carry out a strike. I do not see what the problem is in balancing up the equation. As I have said, we would rather not have this measure at all, but if the member insists that there must be a secret ballot, and if a law has to be there to require it and it can be enforced in a court of law, shareholders should have the same rights—the same democratic rights—to vote on whether their company should lock out workers like the Talley’s workers. Up and down the country in all the small towns throughout New Zealand, in the Moerewas, in the Wairoas, and in the towns where the whole town is dependent on the meatworkers, those workers are standing outside. They do not have a choice about a secret ballot. They have been locked out. They are being starved into submission. Their employer is completely disregarding the provisions in the Employment Relations Act. It is really unfair, and I appeal to the member in the chair to show that he is really serious about democracy and fairness, as he keeps insisting he is, by supporting this amendment.

Andrew Little told us that workers are free to join a union. He told us that they are free to stay in a union. But what workers are not free to do is vote in a ballot free from intimidation, free from standover tactics, and free from the bully-boys who are scared that the union’s desires may be found to be wanting.

This Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is a good bill. This clause 7 is a good clause, and I am surprised that the Labour Party is not supporting it. I am surprised that it is not supporting it, because it is supposed to stand for the small guy. It is supposed to stand for the little guy on the line, doing the hard yards—the little guy whose job and whose pay cheque are at stake when they go on strike. Labour should be supporting this if it supports the little guy, but, really, it is more concerned about the union. It is more concerned about the union being shown up by its own members.

We have heard a little bit about the port tonight. What has not been said are some of the—

💬 Simon Bridges: Too much drinking of port.

Mr Bridges! What we have not heard about the port is some of the things that have been in the paper that have been done by union members. We have had people on independent employment agreements who have been intimidated by union members. We have had people trying to get to work being stopped by union members and being stopped by union officials. We have had people on cranes trying to do their job, but some of the union members have been trying to obstruct that from happening.

I would have to say that if I was one of those workers wanting to cast a ballot that is different from what the union officials want and I had those types of people standing over me, telling me that it is wrong to vote against their desire for a strike, then I would be scared to vote against it. But if they had a secret strike provision, where they could make their own democratic choice around the strike, they could do so without fear of having comeback on them.

I have got a bit of a confession. It is a deep, dark secret that I have been bottling up for many years. I once joined a union. I am a bit ashamed to say it; I am a bit ashamed to say it. But it took me only a few months to work out what was wrong with that decision, because every week part of my pay cheque went out of my pocket and it did not go anywhere useful for me as a worker. So what I did was I decided to stay away from the union, and I went on to an independent agreement. But if I was ever sitting there in a meeting, having to vote on a strike, then I would want to know that I am not going to have union officials and union members breathing down my neck, telling me I could not decide against a strike.

This is a good provision. It will bring democracy to the little guys—the little guys whom the Labour Party is supposed to be supporting. It does not support the little guy any more. It just supports the unions. It supports the union officials, like Andrew Little and Darien Fenton, and it should be supporting this.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to clause 7 be agreed to:

to add the following subsection to new section 82A:

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the legality of a ballot can only be challenged by a member of the union holding it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to—[Interruption] Order! This House has by tradition not had comments under voting, for two reasons. It is hard enough to pick up exactly the diction of some people when they are voting. That is one. Two is that no person will vote in this House under any sort of duress—none whatsoever. If there are going to be interventions during voting, people will take an early shower. Let us make that quite clear.