I find this website having a go at the Minister of Labour pretty ironic. I thought that was my job!
Crest Clean have been whinging for some time now about Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, which requires them to employ the existing cleaners if they take over a cleaning contract. There’s been a couple of court cases, and more pending, I’m told. They’ve been on a letter writing crusade to all MPs and endeavoured to get support from other Cleaning Services Companies. The Minister was supposed to review Part 6A by the end of 2010, so she’s been a bit slack in reporting back to parliament.
There will be changes to part 6A in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which is due to be tabled sometime this year, but I don’t believe the changes will satisfy Crest Clean. This website is yet another self serving go from Crest Clean to change the law in their favour – you can see on the website how busy they’ve been. I hope the Minister takes no notice.
Love the pic though.
I find it pretty weird that you’d link this, since it is clearly a CCCL lobbying website that supports the removal of protection for vulnerable employees on transfer of a business under ths self-serving guise of maintaining NZ’s economic growth.
Tell me if you read it as anything other than that.
Tim of course it is. And I’ve updated the post to make that clear.
” Crest Clean have been PURSUING THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS for some time now about Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act,”
there, fixed it for you.
Dave : clearly the Courts don’t agree that Crest Clean’s legal rights are the same as they think they are.
Haha. Just checking Darien. I think its a good sign you can still be amused by this sort of insidious stuff
I won’t be buying the mug though! (except maybe as a dud christmas gift)
I wondered why the Oily Orca has been doing a daily serve about Wilkinson, so its all clearer now!
Website . tick
Blog putting her in play . Tick
Could this be all linked back to the Waipawa Weasel ?
@GWW : Yeah; CrestClean would be silly enough to use him, like PoAL was. CrestClean lost another case yesterday.
Dave is correct, Crest Clean simply want to pursue their legal rights. All Crest and other companies want is some clarity around the poorly drafted legislation because currently their is none. The time that is it taking for these disputes to be settled is ridiculous and Judges are putting these disputes in the ‘too hard basket’. And if you look at the decisions of the Employment Relations Court to see the legislation has caused millions of dollars in lost productivity by both workers and the companies. There’s even cases of companies bumping up wages for their vulunerable workers knowing that they’re about to lose a contract; all to cost a competitor who has to employ their competitor’s (now-ex) staff on the same terms and conditions that they had at the previous employer.
I look forward to the courts being full of these vulnerable workers cases.
If you look at the specific employment court case of Doran vs Crest, which Crest lost. Under the terms of the decision an election to transfer can be made by anyone (yes anyone including third parties) at anytime by any means including 1 hour prior to Crest commencing the contract. So in the end not only did Crest and the state lose thousands of dollars in legal representation fees, the customer is still going to receive poor service and the person who was going to commence the contract has now been told one hour before commencement that don’t have a job. Ridiculous!
@Ryan : so let’s be clear. You support the intent of Part 6a and you have a problem with its drafting?Because that’s not CrestCleans position and you are sounding a lot like them.
@Darien, I do not support the intent Part 6A as it does nothing to foster productivity and it is counterproductive in securing employee rights. Why would a company train, pay higher than minimum wage and create future jobs prospect with the knowledge that they might lose the employee when they elect to transfer to another company when the contract is sniped.
My reasoning above was that if you are going to write legislation at least ensure there is clarity around the parameters in which the company and its employees can operate.
@Ryan thanks for response. Sounds like Crest arguments to me.
Your response seems indicate that there is a bipartisan approval of Minister Wilkinson’s constant poor performance
@Ryan – I’m pleased that legislation that will deal to workers has been slow in coming through – and the slower the better, so to that extent I approve of the Minister’s performance.No-one is worried about the law being tightened up, but getting rid of protection for vulnerable workers – that’s another story.
Darien – so, to get this straight, you are in favour of retaining badly drafted laws which cause businesses problems in attempting to work under them.
And your default answer to commenters who suggest that maybe the law is really a problem that needs addressing, is that they are company shills and trying to rip off the worker.
I agree with Ryan, it sounds like you are happy with Kate Wilkinson’s performance. Maybe you are voting National next time in order to keep Ms Wilkinson in the job? Or will you be offering her a job in your ministry? That’s of course if Russel or Metiria give you a cabinet post.
Nice, you attracted some Crest PR stooge to tow their line and comment on a specific case.. btw “Ryan”, no such thing as the Employment Relations Court.
And the sky is red and the grass is blue and the sea is violet, right?
:rolleyes:
@One Track ; business has worked under part 6a since 2006. The only company that has any difficulty with it is Crest. There are some technical changes that would make it easier and I will support them. But I won’t support a wholesale attack on the intent of part 6a which is CrestCleans agenda. And on that, they seem to be isolated from the rest of the industry.
Good Morning Darien, firstly for your information there is written unanimous industry support for repeal so you should be careful before you start quoting the industry, secondly if the legislation is so good lets extend it to you poor politicians so that at the next election it wont matter what the public of NZ vote or want the existing ministers can elect to transfer to the new government! Brilliant, yeah right!
@Ryansfriend : good morning to you too. Please provide evidence for your claim there is unanimous support in the industry for repeal. Last time Crest made that claim, I checked it out and while there is support to make technical changes, there is no support for repeal.
This press release just arrived :
Building Services Contractors New Zealand is distancing itself from a website and campaign launched by a non-member cleaning company that pokes fun at Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson.
The ‘Vulnerable Minister’ website has been launched by Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd in an effort to persuade Minister Wilkinson to revise Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Part 6A relates to continuity of employment if employees’ work is affected by restructuring, and has been the subject of ongoing discussions with the sector.
BSC president Patrick Lee-Lo says that while BSC – which represents New Zealand’s building services contractors – was keen for Part 6A to be revised, it in no way supported ridiculing the Minister.
“BSC is talking to the Government about this issue and we will continue to lobby strongly for action……….
“It needs to be amended but we believe the way forward is to maintain our constructive relationship with the Minister and her officials, rather than to go down the path that Crest has chosen. It is important to note that their actions are not supported by our association and its members, and they do not reflect the views of the broader industry.”
Comments Ryan and Ryansfriend?
@ Darien – In fairness of a discussion let me reveal the entire article you missed out in the press release. Surely a politician wouldn’t mislead the public by leaving out areas of an article that would skew their argument, right Darien?
“BSC is talking to the Government about this issue and we will continue to lobby strongly for action. This is certainly the biggest single issue facing our members. This part of the Act is simply unworkable in its present form because it can expose incoming contractors to a range of liabilities they and their clients are not prepared for.
You have no doubt misunderstood this article because it illustrates that the ‘entire sector’ wants the legislation altered because “this is certainly the biggest single issue facing our members. This part of the Act is simply unworkable in its present form because it can expose incoming contractors to a range of liabilities they and their clients are not prepared for”.
All the BSC are doing is communicating that they are distancing itself from Crest’s tactics of popularising the issue. They are not debating the fact that Crest is to lobbying the government on Part 6A.
@ Tim G – unfortunately I am colour blind…
@Ryan : your friend Ryansfriend said there is written unanimous industry support for repeal. Still waiting to see it. The BSC wants amendment, not repeal and I’ve already said that. And btw, I put dots in the quotes to show they were shortened. I will be talking with the BSC – to hear directly from them because at least they represent the industry ; unlike you and Crest.