I understand that the Employment Relations Bill is not available on line.
Link is to pdf – no doubt government will get it’s act together sometime and better quality will be available.
I understand that the Employment Relations Bill is not available on line.
Link is to pdf – no doubt government will get it’s act together sometime and better quality will be available.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 28th, 2010 at 4:09 pm and is filed under #OpenLabourNZ, censorship, parliament. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Here.
It’s up at:
http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0229/latest/whole.html?search=ts_bill_employment_resel&p=1#dlm3329601
Thanks Draco
And there appears to be a problem with the bill as identified by Charles Chauvel. He was incidentally one of the counsel involved in the Bryson case.
Clause 4(2) of the bill says that the deeming provision (that film workers are contractors) does not apply “if the person is a party to, or covered by an employment agreement that provides that person is an enmployee”.
So you still need to analyse the contract to see if it is an employment contract or not and if it is an employment then the amendment does not apply.
If this argument holds the bill is toothless and does no more than reflect current law.
The trouble is that when you rush things you invariably stuff it up.
What a boost for the video game industry (not).
No time to read it, will later. Good to see you fighting this Trev
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/10/hobbit-enabling-bill.html#links
@mickysavage – Congratulations! that was the whole point, it was always a minor law change clarifying the existing law which is subjective, it was just giving certainty to that as there was a case in the past dealing with a worker at a studio.
Currently there are 5 subjective tests used to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor.
- The control test;
- The independence test;
- The organisation or integration test;
- The intention test; and
- the fundamental test.
These are not alternative or distinct tests, but are simply relevant factors to be considered, and in some cases the nature or the relationship may not be clear-cut, there may be competing factors. Tested in the case TRA Case z10 (2009) 24 NZTC 14,113. This law change just makes it clear that a contractor is a contractor in the film industry – nothing scary or “anti-worker” in it at all.
There is a constant droning in the background here as to National, at the behest of Warner Bros, eroding workers rights. Followed by a vague reference to sick pay, holiday pay and the like.
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me, in simple language, what workers rights are actually being eroded here?
If you are an independant contractor, and you meet the terms of the contract, mutually negotiated, in good faith, then that’s your choice, and your right to choose.
If either party fails to meet the terms of the contract, then the contract must be litigated, not the nature of the employment, surely.
And contractors, if you want the same rights as workers, have them negotiated in to your contract! It’s simple.
Not only that, but the Union, if they could shake themselves out of the 1950′s, could quite easily set up a service to act as facilitaors for contract negotiations, if they wish. Mind you, given the ham-fisted apporach the MEAA, CTU and Actors Equity have used up to this point, who would want to use them?
Any sign of Wilkinson’s SOPs? Proves the Govt stuffed up with rushed legislation.
Think I spotted a potential flaw in the original bill, not sure if I am being too pedantic – be interested to know if it was fixed up. But not telling on public forum until the urgency motion lapses