30.07.2013

Replacement Workers – Are the times (and the law) changing?

Replacement Workers – Are the times (and the law) changing?

On 13 June the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot of private members’ bills, meaning that it will soon be introduced to Parliament and debated in the House.  This Bill targets section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

As it currently stands, section 97 permits employers to employ or engage another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee in limited circumstances.  That is, when employees are lawfully on strike or locked out, an employer cannot require non-striking or non-locked out employees to perform their work.  Nor can an employer employ new workers to perform those tasks except on health or safety grounds.

The Bill aims to repeal section 97 completely.  The explanatory note attached to the Bill justifies this proposed repeal on the grounds that section 97 creates an imbalance between unions and employers, and that “restricting the ability of employers to engage temporary replacement labour can have a considerable impact on the productivity and financial viability of an organisation”. 

The National Party has promised to support the Bill through its first reading and to Select Committee.  It has not committed to anything further than that.  It is likely that the Bill will need the support of ACT and either United Future or New Zealand First to even get to Select Committee, as the Opposition are lining up against any repeal of section 97.  We note that Peter Dunne of United Future, a potential supporter, has signalled he will vote against the Bill.  That leaves Winston Peters as the likely kingmaker.

We will keep an eye out on developments with this Bill, as it could potentially have a significant impact on strikes and lock outs.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
Contract dictionary
Is ‘close enough’ OK? Reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event
The English Supreme Court’s decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18 has demonstrated the effect sanctions may have on a contract as a force majeure event and clarified the parameters of...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here?
The useful Mackay v Dick principle is part of English law – might it apply here? In King Crude Carriers S.A. & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors, the English and Wales Court of Appeal confi...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.