REVIEW OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000: PART 9 PERSONAL GRIEVANCES

Transcription

1 REVIEW OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000: PART 9 PERSONAL GRIEVANCES Summry of sumissions April 2010

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Exeutive Summry 3 Introution 6 Sumitter involvement in personl grievnes 9 Prt C: Opertion of the personl grievne system 1. The ost of prolem resolution Vrying qulity (n effet) of employment votes Blne of firness in the personl grievne system Ensuring ess to justie Negtive impt of the responsiveness n timeliness of servies Employment reltionship prolems pper to impt isproportiontely 39 on smll n meium-size enterprises (SMEs) 7. Eligiility rising personl grievne Effetiveness of remeies 47 Assistne to resolve prolems t n erly stge 50 Generl questions 54 Appenix 1: Sumission questions 57 Appenix 2: List of sumitters 61 2

3 Exeutive Summry The ll for puli sumissions on personl grievnes ws esigne to eliit views n personl experienes of the opertion of the personl grievne system. The sumissions provie sujetive view of the personl grievne system n finings from the sumissions nlysis will e supplemente y other more ojetive reserh onute y the Deprtment of Lour, proviing more empiril eviene on the opertion of the personl grievne system. Puli Consulttion isussion pper The Deprtment of Lour sought to unerstn the extent to whih stte prolems roun personl grievnes re genuine or re se on pereption. Pereptions of the system n proesses n hve rel influene on people s ehviour n the wy they interpret the system n proesses relte to personl grievnes. Pereptions n e se on numer of ftors inluing the interests represente y sumitters, personl experiene of the grievne proess n knowlege of the rights n oligtions in the lw. The Deprtment of Lour reeive 219 sumissions, with the mjority of sumissions proviing n employer perspetive (employers, employer ssoitions n inustry groups). This report summrises the sumissions reeive, ientifies key themes rise y sumitters n sets out their preferre options for ny hnge to the personl grievne system. Most sumitters fouse on issues relte to osts, representtion, lne of firness in the system n the test of justifition (setion 103A of the Employment Reltions At). Anlysis of sumissions Bse on our nlysis of sumissions n other reserh, the Deprtment of Lour onsiers tht the lne of firness provie in the urrent lw is out right. However, there re pervsive n enuring onerns expresse y mny employers tht the system is weighte ginst them euse they elieve tht their proesses (n ny minor errors in their proesses) re onsiere y the employment institutions to e more importnt thn the sustne of se. Hene, mny employers hol tht proeurl flws my rener n otherwise justifile tion unjustifie. Mny employers who hve h personl experiene of efening personl grievne lim (n lost ) o not onsier tht justie ws one; o not unerstn why proess is importnt in etermining whether n employer hs te in fir n resonle mnner; n ny weight given y the Employment Reltions Authority or the Employment Court to ulple ontriutory onut on the prt of the employee ppers to hve little impt on the employer s overll ssessment of the proess. Mei overge of ses, in generl, y glossing over why proeurl firness of the flw my hve een ritil, or y ignoring ontriutory osts, tens to reinfore the view tht eision ginst n employer ws unfir. Mny employers who hve not h personl experiene of the personl grievne system (pst meition) nevertheless hol strong views out the system, its osts n the likelihoo of suessfully efening personl grievne llegtion. Suh views were often ite s the reson for hoosing to py out n employee privtely or t meition. 3

4 The Deprtment of Lour onsiers tht the pervsive nture of suh ritiisms, leit not supporte y the reserh finings, y most emis or y mny professionl prtitioners in the system, work to unermine it. Its reiility, its effetiveness n purpose re ll unermine. Most importntly, it is possile tht some employers re pying out employees unneessrily s the llegtion might not stn, if efene. Any steps to ress these prolems must lso tke ount of ounterviling views, the finings of the reserh, n the serious usiness of (potentilly) mking hnges in well-estlishe n importnt prt of employment lw. Key themes: e f g h i j k mny sumitters si osts were unresonle, in prtiulr for smll usinesses onerns were linke to osts ssoite with representtion, unmeritorious lims n verse outomes opposition ws voie to the no-win-no-fee votes, in prtiulr from employers n legl professionls ut there ws eqully view tht the qulity of voy ws hrteristi of the iniviul representtive, rther thn of the metho of pyment ritiism of unethil prties ws trgete t rnge of employment voy proviers n there ws support for some form of regultion from ross ll groups the lw is not generlly onsiere omplex lthough mny employers fin it retes unertinty, it is iffiult n unler priniples of nturl justie were well supporte throughout the sumissions, lthough mny employer sumitters ommente tht there shoul e less fous on proess n more emphsis on sustne of personl grievne the urrent test of justifition reeive wiespre support ut mny sumitters vote n menment to expliitly reognise n employer my pply rnge of resonle responses in mnging prolem rriers rising from lk of knowlege n/or vie were ommon onerns in the sumissions for oth employers n employees n were onsiere to e of greter signifine for some groups in the ommunity thn others elys were ssoite s muh with the ehviour n vilility of representtives n prties to the ispute s with the witing times ssoite with the institutions mjority of employers n employer representtives felt tht tril perios h reue the risk of personl grievnes for SME employers n supporte n extension in the legisltion while employees n union were oppose to this. most sumitters i not support ifferent eligiility rules pplying to ifferent types of employees euse they onsiere tht the lw shoul pply eqully to ll employees l most employers n employer representtives onsiere tht the 90-y limittion perio ws not equte or pproprite nor i they onsier the three yer limittion perio ws pproprite m employer sumitters were more likely to suggest tht reinsttement is remove s the primry remey, ut felt tht it shoul still e n ville remey n 4

5 were onerne tht the urrent rnge of remeies were not effetive t reuiling employment reltionships n o p most suggestions for mking remeies more effetive were roun finnil remeies, inluing hving limits on the mount tht n e wre or inresing wrs to reflet the rel impt on employees mny sumitters were stisfie with the sttus quo n the urrent effetive servie offere y the Deprtment s meition servies n ientifie onstrutive role for meition in erly resolution of onflit, n the role of meition in filtering out meritless lims n in ssisting prties to ientify the issues n the risks of lim, in vne of meition, ws theme throughout the sumissions. Conlusion The ojetives of the personl grievne review were to onsier numer of ftors. Upon nlysing the sumissions, we foun tht it: strikes fir lne etween employer flexiility n employee protetion: isintereste people or groups feel the system is fir. Those with n interest in the outome of personl grievne lim (employers n employees) oth feel tht it is weighte ginst them in ifferent wys oes not impose unneessry osts or oligtions for employers or employees: oth employers n employees felt the system impose osts (iret n iniret). When ompre to other ispute resolution systems in New Zeln or overses, iret osts re reltively moerte. Some employers see these osts s eing orinry usiness osts. Most sumitters woul like to see osts reue supports improvements in workple proutivity: tht employment reltionship prolems inluing personl grievnes versely ffet workple proutivity, n hs met its ojetives (s set out in the Employment Reltions At 2000): roly, sumitters felt the personl grievne system is meeting its ojetives, lthough they lso presente ies out how it n e improve. 5

6 Introution 1 The Government is unertking review of the personl grievne system s estlishe uner the Employment Reltions At 2000 ( the At ). 2 The ojetives of the review re to onsier whether the personl grievne system: strikes fir lne etween employer flexiility n employee protetion oes not impose unneessry osts or oligtions for employers or employees supports improvements in workple proutivity is effiient n effetive, n hs met its ojetives (s set out in the Employment Reltions At 2000). In ition: where improvements re require, the nture n extent of the issues involve, n the steps tht might e tken to ress these (inluing, potentilly, whether ny menments to the legisltion re neessry or esirle). 3 The fous of this review is on the opertion n ssoite proesses of the system. The review oes not onsier the following mtters: the grouns on whih personl grievne my e rise, isrimintion, provisions relting to the rising of omplint uner the Humn Rights At 1993, n provisions relting to the funtions of the Lour Inspetorte. Summry report - Puli onsulttion isussion pper on personl grievnes 4 The im of the isussion pper ws to etter unerstn how wiespre the issues rought to the Minister of Lour n the Deprtment of Lour s ttention re n the experiene people hve of the employment institutions through whih personl grievnes re pursue n resolve. Clrifying the extent to whih prolems in this re re se on experiene or re pereptions of prolems is key ojetive of the review. 5 The isussion pper sought views on the personl grievne system y mking generl ll for written sumissions from the puli etween 2 Mrh n 31 Mrh 2010 n sking questions out the key issues. 6 This report summrises the sumissions reeive, ientifies key themes rise y sumitters n sets out their preferre options for ny hnge. 6

7 Summry of sumitters 7 The Deprtment of Lour reeive 219 written sumissions s etile in the tles elow. Tle 1: Sumitters y type Sumitter Type Perentge of sumitters Employer 55 Employee 4 Employer representtive/inustry orgnistions 8 Union/Employee representtive 5 Legl servies (lwyers, Community Lw Centre) 13 Humn Resoures/Employment reltions visor 5 Employment vote 4 Aemis 2 Fmily n friens 1 Other (e.g. Smll Business Avisory Group, Politil Prty) 3 Totl The following tle shows rekown of employer y usiness size inluing oth privte n puli orgnistions. Tle 2: Sumitters y employer size Business size Perentge of employer sumitters Smll (1-19 employees) 33 Meium (20-49 employees) 12 Lrge (50+ employees) 55 Totl 100 7

8 9 The following tle shows rekown of the inustries the sumitters represent. Employer representtives, suh s Business New Zeln n employee representtives suh s the New Zeln Counil of Tre Unions, whih o not represent employers or employees in speifi inustry hve een inlue in the tegory other servies. The inustry groups re se on the Sttistis NZ ANZS1C level1 oe for inustry type. Tle 3: Sumitters y inustry Inustry Numer of sumitters Mnufturing 20 Eletriity, gs, wter n wste servies 6 Retil tre 27 Aommotion n foo servies 5 Trnsport, postl n wrehousing 11 Informtion mei n teleommunitions 6 Professionl, sientifi n tehnil servies (inluing emis) 46 Aministrtive n support servies 6 Puli ministrtion n sfety 4 Eution n trining 11 Helth re n soil ssistne 15 Other servies (inluing other setors) 1 38 Not elsewhere inlue 1 Not liste y sumitter 23 Totl Other servies inlues representtive oies suh s employer ssoitions, unions n inustry groups. The following setors hve lso een inlue in other servies s they h few sumitters: Agriulture, forestry n fishing; Mining; Constrution; Wholesle tre; Finnil n insurne servies; Rentl, hiring n estte servies; n Arts n reretion servies. 8

9 Sumitter involvement in personl grievnes 10 The mjority of sumitters (186) ommente tht they h een involve in personl grievne, with most of these ourring within the pst yer. Over hlf of the sumitters involve in personl grievne were from n employer kgroun, followe y representtives n employees. Sumitters were lso involve in personl grievnes in other pities suh s fmily memer, frien, support person or visor Most sumitters hve een involve in more thn 10 personl grievnes over the pst yers. However, of these sumitters mny hve een involve in severl (or hunres) of personl grievnes y virtue of their role suh s eing representtive or humn resoure or employment reltions visor. Mny firms with 50+ employees inite they h een involve in lrge numer of personl grievnes. The most ommon type of personl grievnes were unjustifile ismissl, unjustifile tion, sexul hrssment n reunny. 12 The mjority of sumitters hve experiene of the Deprtment s meition servies n the Employment Reltions Authority (the Authority) n few hve experiene of the Employment Court n the Court of Appel 3. Some representtives or visors si they ssiste lients through meition ut they were vise to seek legl representtion eyon this. Privte meition/ritrtion of personl grievnes ws not often utilise y sumitters, with most sumitters ressing the employment prolem through the personl grievne system. 13 Sumitters involve in personl grievnes generlly resolve them through meition. While finnil settlement ws most ommon, resolution involve oth monetry n non-monetry (e.g. pology, reinsttement) outomes. Sumitters si tht etermintions me y the Authority were more in fvour of the employer thn the employee. Some employer sumitters felt tht the Authority h given etter outome thn they expete. For exmple, one employer eie to efen se t the Authority even though they expete to lose euse of pereive Authority is, ut inste they were suessful. 14 Regrless of the outome, mny sumitters inite tht there re huge osts, prtiulrly legl osts, involve in resolving the prolem. 2 Avisor s ientifie through the sumissions oul e n internl or externl humn resoure/employment reltions visor or emi. 3 Six sumitters (mostly lrge employers n representtives) si they hve een involve in personl grievne se t the Court of Appel. 9

10 Opertion of the personl grievne system 15 This setion resses sumitters responses to the eight issues s ientifie uner Prt C of the isussion pper: Opertion of the personl greivne system. 1. The ost of prolem resolution 16 The osts employers n employers inur in reltion to personl grievne my inlue the osts of representtion, lost inome, workple proutivity, n personl n fmily osts. This setion resses sumissions on three key res: sumitters views on the resonleness of osts sumitters views on the omprison with other legl isputes proesses, n sumitters views on reuing osts. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the resonleness of osts Summry The osts of personl grievnes were esrie in terms of ompenstion wrs, representtion osts, n personl or soil osts rising from oth the proess n the outome of personl grievnes. While mny sumitters si these osts were unresonle, in prtiulr for smll usinesses, often the onerns were linke to osts ssoite with unmerite lims n verse outomes. Eviene ws provie y sumitters who hel tht osts were resonle within New Zeln n interntionl ontext n integrl to upholing rights n responsiilities in lw. 17 The isussion pper note the verge ost of settling personl grievne ws $5000 n employer sumitters hel the view tht this ws unresonle. Mny inite tht the resonleness of osts epene on the outome of the se. As one employer si ll osts re too high unless the employer is wrong n nother si the osts were resonle if the employer is wrong n not resonle if the employer is right. The Smll Business Avisory Group (SBAG) note tht the osts to smll usiness were isproportiontely high ompre with osts for lrge usiness. They si there ws pereption tht employees took vntge of the usiness s lk of resoures to tke personl grievnes, quoting one employer who si: They will settle for n mount slightly lower thn the ost of proeeing s they re wre n smll n meium-size usinesses (SMEs) nnot ffor the time on top of this. 18 Employers, employees, unions, legl firms, ssoitions n emis onsiere the osts resonle or low. One sumission from n emi si tht the settlement of personl grievnes in New Zeln ws low ompre with other ountries, iting 2005 the Austrlin Chmer of Commere n Inustry estimte tht the verge ost of settlement for employers ws $A10,000 (ACCI, Unfir Dismissl Lws, August 2005). He lso quotes sttistis from the Unite Kingom tht inite, on the urrent exhnge rte, the verge ompenstion wr for unfir ismissl is out NZ$16,000 (without ompenstion for injury to feelings) n the mein wr is roun NZ$8,500 (Triunls Servie, Employment Triunl n EAT Sttistis (GB) 1 April 2008 to 31 Mrh 2009). A numer of sumitters si the weight of osts fell more hevily on employees thn employers. Unions n employees si tht in most ses employers re in muh 10

11 etter position to sor the osts thn employers n tht the system therefore fvoure employers. 19 The New Zeln Counil of Tre Unions (NZCTU) resse the ost of employment reltionship prolems ross the workfore s whole quoting 2007 Deprtment of Lour stuy to rgue tht osts were tiny. They ompre this with reruitment osts whih they si woul e ten times higher. The stuy si: there were 1.5 prolems per 100 employees, with personl grievnes eing smll suset of tht numer, n the iret ost of prolems ws 0.4% of totl privte setor wges, n the iniret ost ws 0.6%. 20 While the resonleness of osts ws very muh in the eye of the eholer, the view ws lso expresse tht suh osts were prt of eing in usiness. The Employment Lw Institute ommente tht if prties re to hve rights n responsiilities then when things go wrong there will e some osts ssoite with enforement. Furthermore, they si it is importnt to keep osts in perspetive there re orresponingly lrge osts in not resolving employment reltionship prolems. 21 Sumissions resse ifferent types of osts inluing ompenstion pyments, osts of representtion n personl osts: Compenstory wrs were onsiere unresonly high y mny employers. Some sumitters onsiere the size of the usiness shoul e tken into ount with tiere ompenstion reognising tht smll usiness h few resoures thn lrger firms. Other sumitters suggeste ompenstion wrs for proeurl efiienies shoul e less thn for sustntive efiienies. For instne, one employer suggeste tht proess fults shoul e vlue t $500 ompre with fults in sustne for whih $3,000 woul e more resonle. Other sumitters were onerne tht ompenstion wrs were too low. One lw firm si it s rely isinentive for employers to omply with the lw when they re looking t pying someone $3,000 to go wy quietly. The Polie Mnger s Guil note tht ompenstion i not wr workers for the istress use ut workers re fore to gree to these verges t meition euse this is refletion of wht is orere y the Authority n the Court if litigte. Sumitters suggeste tht inresing ompenstory pyments to workers woul inentivise employers to ress efiits in mngeril skills in orer to voi litigtion osts. A numer of lw firms me sumissions on legl osts wrs whih they onsiere too low. They vote muh higher, or full, osts wrs for suessful prties. The Lw Soiety sumission note the gulf etween one y hering t the Authority of etween $5,000 n $8,000 when the wrs routinely st etween $2,000 n $3,000. Minter Ellison suggeste higher osts wrs woul eter unmerite lims whih shoul e efene y employers who might otherwise mke ommeril eision to settle efore osts eslte. All groups who h een involve in personl grievnes esrie the personl n soil osts of grievnes. These osts inlue: the wier impt on the workple, inluing reue proutivity n morle; n the flow-on effets 11

12 for fmilies n ommunities touhe y the ispute. These iniret osts were ttriute to rise from numer of ftors inluing: i ii iret finnil osts of representtion n monies pi in mges elys in the mngement of the grievne in the workple n the proesses of the institutions, n iii unertinty of outome n lk of onfiene in the system elivering fir outome. 22 SBAG spoke out the osts of time, personl stress, isruption to the workple n risk to the usiness s survivl. Two other exmples illustrte the experiene for oth employers n employees: One employer si: All employers know tht if n employee tkes PG ginst them, regrless of the sustne or lk of sustne it will ost them in terms of the finnil ost of representtion, iret settlement t meition, reruitment, trining/orienttion, time, effort, loss of proutivity. In ition, there n e loss of stff morle, reputtion n stress. A prtner of worker who h een involve in personl grievne si: There is terrile fer of oth the finnil ost n the emotionl ost not to mention the very puli wreness of hving to go through this proess. It is oth emrrssing n stressful n n hve etrimentl ffet on fmily s whole. The terrile elys to the stress n n ter fmily prt. I personlly hve felt suiil t times n hve suffere sleepless nights n restlessness. I hve not een le to onentrte n often feel isolte n lonely. Sumitters views on the osts of employment isputes ompre with other legl isputes proesses Summry Most sumitters si tht the osts ssoite with employment isputes were lower thn those ssoite with other legl isputes. The ess to erly ispute resolution ws ientifie s key ontriutor to the low ost of employment isputes. 23 The mjority of sumitters si tht the osts of n employment ispute were lower thn might e expete in other ivil or legl isputes, lthough the Humn Rights Commission n the Disputes Triunl were two exmples of proesses tht were onsiere similr or heper to ess. One sumitter ientifie low ost meition servies s ftor ontriuting to the low ost of employment reltions prolem resolution. Business New Zeln suggeste tht the ollr limittion eiling ple on lims file with the Disputes Triunl oul provie useful pproh for meition servies. 24 Other sumitters were onerne t mking omprtive ssessment. They highlighte tht: in other legl isputes itionl tools were ville to prties inluing interloutory remeies, suh s strike out n/or seurity for osts whih enle unmerite lims to e filtere out t n erly stge ll legl tions involve ost n it ws iffiult to reue those osts other thn y speey n effetive resolution of isputes 12

13 the osts relting to lost wges is guie y the Employment Reltions At (s 128 of the Employment Reltions At) n for ompenstion y the Authority or the Employment Court n this effetively estlishes wht is resonle in the employment eisions, n ommeril jugements re me in ll fiels out wht is resonle ost on the sis of n ssessment of risk to the usiness weighing up the vlue of prolonging ispute, losing se, or settling out of ourt. Sumitters views on reuing osts 25 Sumitters ientifie tht osts oul t s isinentive to employees tking lims or isinentive to employers filing to mnge employees firly. 26 Proposls from those wnting to see osts operte s isinentive to employees tking personl grievnes, in prtiulr, wht re pereive s unmerite lims, inlue: ensuring higher or full ost reovery in the Authority so employers n efen unmerite lims n to t s eterrent to employees tking unmerite lims imposing higher filing fees (one employer suggeste $250 n nother $500) to ensure tht it ws not too esy to loge personl grievne imposing penlty for unmerite lims, n introuing ps on oth wges reimursement ( ommon suggestion ws for one month) n for ompenstory pyments. 27 Sumitters wnting to see osts reue y inentivising employers to mnge employees in fir n resonle mnner propose: inresing the mount of mges pyments to urtely reflet the rel loss for employees more emphsis on erly resolution of prolems through: i ii essile informtion on the pproh of the ismissl proesses, speilist institutions n prolem resolution osts n vie line or other mehnism for employers n employees to get free vie, n iii investment in mngement pility roun ispute resolution. 28 Ojetions to the ost of legl representtion were pprent from employers n some employees with omments tht these osts te s eterrent to efening or tking ses. One employer referre to soliitors rtes s turn-off n n employment onsultnt suggeste tht legl osts ensure truth is the vitim in most ses. While unions, employers, n employees involve lwyers in personl grievnes there ws rnge of proposls to limit legl osts from ross ll groups. This inlue: ensuring osts tht n e wre in the Authority remin moest to prevent esltion of legl osts nning vrious types of representtive, inluing: i free servies 13

14 ii no-win-no-fee votes iii soliitors n lwyers, n iv representtion in the erly phses of ispute resolution, suh s meition. extening the vilility of low ost options, for instne, inresing legl i n funing to ommunity lw entres n proviing support for unions to represent employees in personl grievnes enhning erly n/or informl intervention in prolems, suh s i ii legislting to mke meition ompulsory, to reue eviting to the Authority with its ssoite osts introuing meition/ritrtion moel (pereive y some to reue the osts of the Authority ut y others to exerte the numers of prties ppeling to the Authority) iii enling the striking out of frivolous lims efore meition iv ompulsory phone filittion prior to meition v requirement tht prties meet to seek resolution n meet other riteri efore meition is provie, n e supporting employers n employees to e informe n skille to represent themselves through i ii free voy through the Deprtment of Lour/meition servies, n essile informtion n other relte support. 29 Other suggestions for reuing osts inlue: reuing the timefrme for sumitting personl grievne from 90 ys to 30 ys, primrily to limit the numer of lims, n filtering out of unmerite lims t n erly stge y empowering meitors to mke eisions on unmerite ses or enhning eision-mking y meitors. 30 Costs lerly plye ig prt in the eisions me y sumitters in tking n efening ses, lthough some sumitters were ler tht it ws the priniple or the merits of the se tht itte how it woul e mnge. Most employers si tht eision ws me on the enefits of settling ispute erly over the osts of proeeing with litigtion. This resulte in strong pereption y sumitters tht money ws eing pi to employees euse of the risks ssoite with efening ses, regrless of its merits. While this ws referre to y some employers s lkmil, others esrie weighing up the osts n enefits s norml usiness eision. Disussion n nlysis 31 The min themes in reltion to osts of personl grievnes re tht: The osts of personl grievnes re too high reting uren for smll usinesses, prtiulrly SMEs n enourging unmerite lims ginst employers. 14

15 The osts relting to personl grievnes re too low so tht employees re not firly reompense when they re unjustifily ismisse nor re employers enourge to mnge their employees firly. The osts of representtion re signifint ftor in the overll osts of personl grievnes. The osts re low reltive to osts of resolving non-employment isputes n when ompre to osts in other ountries. 32 The osts of personl grievnes inlue personl n soil osts, ompenstory wrs n representtion osts. Both employees n employers esrie the impt of these osts s signifint. The question is lso whether these osts re pproprite n therefore, resonle. A numer of ftors nee to e onsiere in suh n ssessment: Any proess tht supports employers n employees to resolve prolems tht re se on legl rights n responsiilities will entil the osts of entering into tht proess n osts ssoite with ny eision rising out of tht proess. The resonleness of the ost my reflet omprisons with other ispute resolution systems in New Zeln n interntionl omprisons. There re osts ssoite with not resolving employment reltionship prolems, inluing proutivity loss n turnover in the workple. 33 Mny employer sumitters sy tht the osts re too high n enourge py-outs to employees to prevent litigtion, regrless of the merits of the se. These pyouts re ttriute in prt to the fer of the osts ssoite with efening se. While this ws onsiere norml usiness prtie y some it ws symptomti of n unfir system for others. 34 Disinentives to employees to tke unmerite personl grievne lims inlue rising the filing fees for employees, enling employers to reover full osts for efening suh lim, imposing penlties for lims etermine to e unmerite, n/or filtering out unmerite lims t n erly stge of the proess. Some relevnt onsiertions re: Inresing filing fees my well inhiit employees mking lims ut eqully this penlises those with justifie lims n generlly limits ess to justie. Deprtment of Lour t inites tht less thn two perent (1.8%) of lims over three yer perio ( ) were lelle unmerite or vextious y the Authority or Court. Enling prties to reoup onsierly higher, or full, osts for suessfully efening n unmerite lim woul give onfiene to employers to proee with litigtion rther thn elivering py-out to mke the prolem go wy. It is relevnt, however, tht the Authority n the Court urrently hve isretion to wr higher osts to prty who hs to efen n unmerite lim or who fes n unmerite efene to lim. Inemnity osts n lso e wre in rre irumstnes (Brury v Westnk Bnking Group [2009] NZCA 234). Filtering out unmerite lims to reue osts woul still require time n osts ssoite with mking eision on the vliity of the lim n is more omplex in tht it oul potentilly involve hnges to the wy tht the 15

16 institutions urrently operte, whether this is meition servies or the Employment Reltions Authority. One option not rise y sumitters is the notion of penlising lwyers or other pi representtives who help efen unmerite lims, or provie n unmerite efense. In Austrli, in ertin irumstnes, Fir Work Austrli n mke ost orer ginst lwyer or pi gent. 35 Other sumitters propose reuing the overll osts of personl grievnes y enhning mngement pility, whih woul in turn reue the numer of tions tken y employees. Some sumitters i not gree there were lrge numers of unmerite lims initing inste tht employers lke pility in mnging grievnes n the low levels of ompenstion i little to inentivise these employers to rise the stnrs. Proposls to rise ompenstion levels through sttute nees to e lne ginst the urrent role of the Authority n the Courts in setting pproprite levels of ompenstion tht then guie meition n privte settlements. 36 Erly resolution of grievnes is preferle euse it will ten to support proutive employment reltionships n low ost effiient mngement of the usiness. However, ny osts ssoite with in-house resolution of prolems re likely to reflet omintion of ftors eyon simple sttutory solutions inluing: the ost of ny legl vie the verge settlements likely shoul the se go to the Authority ny sttutory guine, suh s lost wges (s 128 of the Employment Reltions At), n wht the prties gree is resonle, or o-le, in negotition. 37 The osts of representtion re feture of most sumissions n while some sumitters sy legl representtion is importnt to e ssure of mking the right eision n hieving the est outome, others inite tht there is little hoie. A ontriuting ftor to prties engging representtives ws their lk of knowlege of their rights n oligtions in hnling personl grievne n lk of unerstning out the system. 38 Enhne oligtions to support erly resolution of prolems inlue sttutory options, suh s mntory meition n enhne ritrtion. The sttutory options woul hnge the urrent nture of meition s highly flexile n lrgely voluntry proess n potentilly trnsform the pproh to meition where prties n tlk in n open n onfientil environment tht fosters mutully gree outomes. 39 Non-sttutory options inlue requirement for the prties to meet n ttempt to resolve the prolems prior to meition n n oligtion to islose the nture of representtion in vne of meition. These options ress onern tht there is insuffiient work one y prties efore they tten forml meition. Without reourse to legisltive menments prties oul e supporte with the following options: phone filittion y meition servies prior to forml meetings, tht nvss efforts to resolve the prolem prior to ttening meition with ssoite vie in the event tht no efforts hve een me or the nture of representtion of eh prty to ensure trnspreny 16

17 emphsising the importne of ttenne t meition y ensuring prties seeking to voi meition re not given preferene in the system in either the Authority or meition servies, n ensuring prties unwittingly filing t the Authority without prior meition re referre to the meition servies without the ost of filing fee. 17

18 2. Vrying qulity (n effet) of employment votes 40 The ojetives of the Employment Reltions At 2000 support low level pproh to prolem resolution, inluing the provision of ispute resolution servies tht o not require legl representtion n reognition of the importne of goo fith in ll spets of the employment reltionship. The role of representtives is ftor in the effetiveness of the legisltion with respet to these ojetives. This setion resses experienes n pereptions out the role of representtives, fousing in prtiulr on the following res: the type of representtion experiene y sumitters sumitters experiene in reltion to representtives, n proposls to improve the qulity of representtion. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the qulity of employment votes Summry Sumitters were generlly hppy with their representtives for personl grievnes, lthough they were less hppy with the opposing prty s representtion. No-win-no-fee votes were seen y some sumitters s enourging the pursuit of unmerite lims n the settlement of lims t low n unfir level. However, ross ll sumitter groups the qulity of voy ws more often linke to the qulity of the iniviul s oppose to the metho of pyment y the employee. There ws wiespre support for some form of stnristion n monitoring of voy n n inrese emphsis on erly ispute resolution to reue the osts of representtion overll. Sumitters experiene of ifferent types of representtion 41 Most sumitters h experiene some form of representtion in the ourse of trying to resolve grievne, whether these representtives were legl prtitioners, employment onsultnts, unions or employer representtive orgnistions. Some sumitters offere no-win-no-fee servies n others h engge with these representtives in some pity. Only hnful of sumitters self-represente or esse only in-house servies n so, while they were hppy with the outome, the numers were too smll to e informtive. 42 Mny sumitters foun the experiene stressful or upsetting regrless of the nture of the representtion n often the qulity of the voy ws iretly linke to positive outome ut in most instnes where prties were represente, their experiene of the representtives they engge, ws positive one. For exmple, they tlke of the employment votes eing very professionl n resonle or offering goo vie ; legl prtitioners eing well-vise n exellent. 43 There ws less onsisteny when sumitters spoke out the opposing prty s vote. Some employer sumitters expresse onern out no-win-no-fee votes. For exmple, one person si they ten to e ggressive n ullying n nother si they were lkmile. However, ritiism ws lso irete t legl prtitioners, who one employer si woul wring out the se n oost their fees n nother remrke tht the involvement of lwyers on either sie turns the proess wy from prtil prolem solving, it is sometimes etter when goo non-lwyer vote is involve. A ommunity-se lw professionl 18

19 ommente tht it ws stressful s the rrister h no experiene with hnling PG issues/proeures, noting the proeure ws rwn out, the proess versril, the outome unsuessful for oth prties n the legl osts to oth sies were huge. Sumitters experiene in reltion to representtives No-win-no-fee voy servies 44 Disussion out no-win-no-fee votes presente omplex piture of this form of representtion. Mny employers expresse fers of inrese litigtion in the event their employees engge suh votes lthough they h no iret experiene of these representtives. Other sumitters relye negtive experienes with no-win-no-fee votes uring negotitions. 45 Umrell orgnistions for legl prtitioners n employers voie numer of onerns sying: these votes fouse on monetry outomes rther thn the est solution, inluing shift in emphsis to exit pkges tht employees rrie no risk when engging no-win-no-fee votes n were therefore more likely to mount n unmerite lim n put pressure on employers to mke py-out to voi litigtion. 46 Legl representtives who ritiise no-win-no-fee votes i this on the sis of the qulity of the voy n suggeste there ws some ishonesty in the wy they presente their servies. One lw firm si there were too mny owoys n unethil votes who re unskille n re simply spping money off lrey injure employees. Another si this form of representtion ws not stritly speking risk-free for employees who were often require to py something even if there ws not suessful outome. 47 Two suggestions propose lifting the stnrs n onsisteny of representtion: some form of uthoristion, regultion, or Coe of Prtie n/or professionl oy tht fixes stnrs n mnges omplints the ility for the Authority or the Employment Court to wr osts ginst representtive, personlly, if they hve inurre osts unneessrily. 48 Sumitters supporting no-win-no-fee votes rgue tht levels of servie n professionlism relte to the prtiulr prtitioner s oppose to the type of pyment rrngements entere into with lient. Meitors, legl prtitioners, emis n employment votes si tht it oul not e ssume tht there ws reltionship etween the type of representtive n the qulity of representtion. Further it ws rgue tht vrile representtion ws feture of ny re of ispute resolution. Some of the votes onteste the view tht nowin-no-fee rrngements enourge unmerite lims or presente more ggressive style of voy. They rgue: the Employment Lw Institute si tht its memers were governe y Coe of Conut to ress onut n professionlism n this supporte ethil ehviour n not unmerite lims one vote, who worke perioilly on ontingeny sis, si tht some soliitors lso operte in suh pity n the only ifferene ws the fees for the soliitor were lot higher 19

20 e some sumitters rgue tht unmerite ses were not the preserve of the nowin-no-fee votes ut oul eqully e mounte y legl prtitioners there ws strong inentive for no-win-no-fee votes to settle lims to prevent lrge osts eing inurre y proeeing to the Authority n this supporte low ost prompt resolution of ses, n often workers tke ses, not euse of the money, ut to ler their nme from the stigm of hving ismissl on their reor, to get referene or ring some losure to ispute. For low pi workers, without union representtion, no-win-no-fee votes provie vile lterntive. Other types of representtion 49 Sumissions were lso reeive from orgnistions proviing free servies for memers or lients n those not essing ny externl support ut epening on their own skills or in-house resoures. This inlue orgnistions tht i not hrge t ll for servies, suh s unions, ommunity-se servies suh s ommunity lw entres n workers rights servie. Supporting the urrent sope for representtion, the following points were me: ttrting wie rnge of representtives shoul e seen s supporting ess to justie n is similr to pprohes in other jurisitions limiting the rnge of representtives oul result in employees eing isvntge y fing n uneven plying fiel in ny ispute resolution proess where the employer engges representtive, n the NZCTU note tht union representtion provies n effiient n effetive wy to resolve workple isputes euse most prolems re sorte out efore meition n the Authority, where the osts eslte for ll onerne. Sumitters proposls to improve the qulity of representtion 50 Sumissions reommening improvements to the qulity of voy fouse on hnging the types of representtion ville; shifting the fous of ispute resolution wy from the more ostly institutions, where pi representtion is more ommon; n, putting some heks n lnes in the system to foster ethil ehviour. Proposls for more punitive tion to eter unmerite lims, often ssoite with poor voy eisions, is resse in the osts setion (see pr 26). 51 At one en of the spetrum sumitters propose nning professionl legl representtion or no-win-no-fee votes from the personl grievne proess lthough mny sumitters h positive experienes of eh type of legl representtion. Of those proposing limits to the role of legl voy, some speifie tht suh limits shoul e impose only t the erly stges of ispute resolution, for instne t meition. There ws lso view tht prties sometimes sought to mth their opponent s type of representtion n this oul result in n unneessry esltion of osts. They vote tht prties e require to islose the nture of their representtion in vne of ny meeting so osts were not unneessrily wste on wht oul e onsiere over-representtion. 52 Shifting the fous of ispute resolution to the erly stges of onflit to voi unneessry osts ws supporte y employer n union sumitters. Mny people si tht representtion in the institutions ws require for suessful outome or s one sumitter si to mnge risk. However, it ws rgue tht 20

21 representtives n steer prolem-solving wy from ommon sense negotitions n towrs ostly litigtion. One lrge employer si representtives often hijk meition whih hurts proess n use[s] su-optiml outomes for ll prties. Some sumitters suggeste there shoul e ssistne provie to prties to represent their own se inluing: puliising informtion on proess n ompenstory wrs enhning the skills of prties n the vie ville to prties, n erly intervention support from meition servies (see prs ). 53 Sumissions from lw prtitioners, unions, employment votes n ommunity-se legl servies supporte reting stnrs ross the voy inustry. Sumitters suggeste this woul enhne ountility n onfiene in representtives not governe y urrent set of stnrs. Proposls suggest regultion, uthoristion or registrtion so tht there re trnsprent ethil requirements n mens to monitor stnrs n ress omplints. Community Lw Cnterury si votes who wish to pper t employment meition or efore the Authority shoul omplete trining in meition, n minimum qulifition in employment lw. There shoul e registrtion n oe of prtie inluing qulity stnrs, proess for ressing poor performne n unresonle fees. 54 Legl servies for low pi workers re provie y ommunity orgnistions suh s the Workers Rights Servie tht represents workers free of hrge or for ontion. They expresse onern out ny itionl osts of liensing or registrtion tht oul jeoprise their servies. Disussion n nlysis 55 Most sumitters were stisfie with the representtion they reeive for personl grievnes ut mny h strong views out their opponent s hoie of representtive. There ws opposition voie to the use of no-win-no-fee votes, in prtiulr, from employers n legl prtitioners ut there ws eqully view tht the qulity of voy ws hrteristi of the iniviul representtive, rther thn of the metho of pyment. Some sumitters suggeste rring no-winno-fee votes, however this ws minority view n ny ttempt to o so woul hve numer of negtive onsequenes, inluing: pling restritions on the right to representtion, whih is funmentl to nturl justie restriting ess to justie y limiting the rnge of low ost options ville to workers reting inequities given tht some soliitors operte in this pity urrently n woul not e rre, n reting restrints on usinesses freeom to struture their fees for lients. 56 Critiism of unethil prties ws trgete t rnge of employment voy proviers n there ws support for some form of regultion from ross ll groups. The promotion of orgnistions, priniples n prties oul estlish stnr n s long s this ws not mntory servies for low pi workers woul not e exlue from operting Requirements of votes might inlue: promoting professionl ehviour to lients, other prtitioners n institutions 21

22 reognising, mnging n islosing onflits of interest (pereive n tul) proviing professionl evelopment, e.g. trining, qulifitions, expertise, n ensuring fir n resonle fees. 22

23 3. Blne of firness in the personl grievne system 57 This setion resses pereptions of is in the personl grievne system. Questions 6 n 7 in the isussion pper re ivie into five key res onsisting of sumitters views on: e the firness of the system the system s omplexity proess versus sustne minor irregulrities in proesses, n the ojetive test. Summry of Sumissions Sumitters views on the firness of the system Summry Pereptions of the firness of the personl grievne system were se on numer of ftors inluing the interests represente y sumitters, personl experiene of the grievne proess n knowlege of the rights n oligtions in the lw. Employers minly expresse the view tht the system ws unfir n ise in fvour of employees, mny rwing on their experienes of personl grievnes. Some employers felt the system ws ise ginst them, ut i not hve personl experiene of the system, hoosing inste to settle the mtter privtely outsie of it. Employees n employee representtives onsiere the system firly lne, with some initing is in fvour of employers. Aemis n lw firms generlly, se on the se lw, onsiere the system to e fir overll. 58 While some sumitters hel the view tht the system fvoure either employers or employees, mny sumitters from ll groups si the system ws fir. Lw firms, employees n employee representtive groups, puli setor genies, emis n some employers hel this view. The Employment Lw Institute si tht pereptions of is ross the ontinuum my in ft emonstrte tht the system is not ise towr either sie. One sumitter offere two enhmrks ginst whih the New Zeln lw oul e eeme firly lne from Interntionl Lour Orgnistion Convention 158, whih speifies tht the employment of worker shll not e terminte unless there is vli reson for suh termintion onnete with the pity or onut of the worker or se on the opertionl requirements of the unertking (Artile 4), n worker who onsiers tht his employment hs een justifily terminte shll e entitle to ppel ginst tht termintion to n imprtil oy, suh s ourt, lour triunl, ritrtion ommittee or ritrtor (Artile 8). 59 Union sumissions supporte the urrent lw s fir lne etween employers n employees interests. The NZCTU note tht: the employment reltions frmework in New Zeln oes not llow worker[s] the right to strike over personl grievne issues The sene therefore of this funmentl right ples signifint weight on the roustness of the personl grievne system. 23

24 60 One Union sumission note the importne of sfegurs in lw to ensure the fir resolution of isputes for workers euse of the inherent inequlity of power in the employment reltionship (s 3 of the Employment Reltions At). Other sumissions emphsise the importne of proteting employees interests, reognising their finnil epenene on employment, the personl osts of eution n their personl reputtions. The Servie n Foo Workers Union expresse onern t the misrepresenttion of ses in the mei. It ite ses in whih long serving employees were foun to e justifily ismisse for ses of reltively trivil onut, suggesting the lne ws not tilte in fvour of the employee ut tht the reverse my e the se. 61 A numer of sumissions expresse the view tht ny is in the personl grievne proess ws in the employer s fvour. One Union sumission si tht ny unfirness relte to the low frequeny t whih reinsttement ws orere n the low remeies for workers who lost their jos. University of Vitori lw professor, Goron Anerson, note tht is in fvour of the employer reflete firstly, n ssume soil onsensus tht employers s owners hve right to mnge their usiness n tht eisions relting to employers shoul e se on the employer s usiness nees ; n seonly, tht the stnr for eision mking is tht of n ojetive employer (s ompre to isintereste oserver or even n ojetive employee for exmple). 62 Most employers n employer representtives sumitte tht the system ws not fir n tht it ws ise in fvour of employees, espeilly where smll usinesses were onerne. Employers n employer representtives si the lw i not tke ount of the ontext of the employment environment n ple too muh emphsis on proess. One employers orgnistion sumitte tht the lw knowleges the importne tht employment hs in n employee s life ut wrongly hs tht s singulr fous ignoring the investment n life-long effort put in to reting n running usiness. Spotless Servies esrie the requirements of the lw s very loose, vgue, n sitution epenent foring employers to e over utious n potentilly think tht ny onern my e grievne. Sumitters views on the system s omplexity Summry Most sumitters from ross ll groups i not onsier the lw to e omplex. While some sumissions from employers n employer representtives esrie the pplition of fir proess s omplite n iffiult, most onerns were irete t the lk of lrity n unertinty of outome n some t the lk of knowlege n essile informtion out the lw. 63 Most representtives i not fin the system of personl grievnes omplex, in ft, some onsiere the lk of omplexity me it too essile for employees. One sumitter note tht employment lw presente no greter hllenge thn tx lw, limite liility or fmily trust lw. The NZCTU oserve tht the system ws esigne to e open n flexile with reognition tht ess to informtion n meition ws more importnt thn herene to rigi forml proeures (s 101 of the Employment Reltions At). 64 The lw for mny sumitters lke lrity. It ws vriously esrie y employers s omplex, penti, loose n vgue. Sumitters from smll usinesses expresse onern out the iffiulty of following fir n resonle 24

25 proess n this ws ehoe y lrge usinesses n employer representtives on ehlf of smll usinesses. An employers orgnistion esrie the proess s lottery n sumission from lrge employer reflete numer of employers sumissions when it ommente: You never know tht you i it right until the Employment Court eems it so! The lk of lrity ws evient where employers were unsure whether the test of justifition pplie to them or wht their oligtions were to their employees when prolems rose. This ws reflete in omments suh s I on t think this pplies to me n if s n employer you know tht n employee hs one something you shoul e le to rrnge meeting n put it on the tle. 65 Mny employer sumissions expresse onern t the unertinty n esrie the stressful experienes n the unexpete n isppointing outomes tht followe their involvement in personl grievne hering. The ft tht I h pper tril of mny similr situtions, eh with wrnings n expliit exmples of pproprite responses, ws nullifie, s I h not followe the form of pi stn own time to poner his responses. (Smll Business Avisory Group sumission) 66 Aross ll sumitter groups there were mny suggestions for improving wreness, inluing informtion, ess to free n inepenent vie n oe of prtie to enhne lrity n ertinty roun the pplition of the lw. Sumitters views on proess versus sustne Summry Most employer sumissions onsiere tht proess trumpe sustne n the lw ws onsequently unfir. At the sme time mny sumissions highlighte the importne of nturl justie, inluing those sumitters ritil of wht they onsier to e n emphsis on proess over sustne. Other groups i not gree tht proess ws onsiere to e more importnt thn sustne, reognising tht oth re require to e onsiere. They rgue tht the proesses of the employer nee to e srutinise euse it is the employer s tions t issue in investigting personl grievne lim. These sumitters hel tht elief tht proess trumps sustne showe lk of unerstning out the pproh of the employment institutions, n ignore the isretion the institutions use to ftor into their eisions the ulple ontriutory onut of n employee. 67 While some employers si tht nturl justie ws unfir, sumitters in ll groups voie support for ensuring tht nturl justie remine entrl to the hnling of personl grievne. One sumitter note ro onsensus over three ees in New Zeln tht employees shoul not e eprive of their employment without goo reson n the priniples of nturl justie eing oserve. 68 Sumissions from representtives expresse ommitment to the priniples of nturl justie n outline key omponents inluing: notie to the worker of the speifi llegtion n opportunity for the employee to refute the llegtion n unise onsiertion of the employee s explntion, n the right to representtive. 25

26 69 Business New Zeln vote n pproh se on the priniples of nturl justie while t the sme time voiing slvish herene to minutely etile proess erive from lw. The NZCTU note tht the proeurl requirements were ommon to most proesses where nturl justie ws reognise omponent n serve, in prtie, to prevent the esltion of personl grievnes. 70 The ete mong sumitters on this issue primrily fouse on the weight tht shoul e given to these priniples in ssessing the firness of the tions n the onsequenes for employers foun to e in reh of the priniples. On the one hn these si requirements were onsiere importnt if n investigtion were to e eeme fir n on the other hn sumitters onsiere they shoul e given less weight on ertin grouns. These grouns inlue: where the tion is sustntively justifie if the employer followe proess they onsiere pproprite, n if the reh of nturl justie ws not suffiiently severe. 71 One sumission from n emi, summe up the ounterviling view provie y severl ommenttors: As to the requirement for fir n resonle proess the Court oes not look minutely n pentilly to see whether the employer hs te firly n resonly to stnr of perfetion. Rther, the ssessment is one of overll firness n resonleness in ll the irumstnes of the prties n of the se proess tht is funmentlly, pervsively, n mnifestly unfir must n will lerly hve tht result [e foun to e unjustifile] uner s 103A of the Employment Reltions At. In suh irumstnes, it is likely tht the unfirness n unresonleness of the employer s proess will, in turn, hve le to it not mking fir n resonle eision to ismiss on the merits of the llegtions ginst the employee. None of this is novel or remrkle. It is well known n well estlishe employment lw A numer of sumitters si tht the ility of the employment institutions to ftor into their eisions the ontriutory onut of the employee ws not wellunerstoo, or tene to e overlooke. Suh powers were eliertely provie for in the lw. These sumitters pointe out tht the employment institutions must: reflet in remeies the employee s ulple ontriutory onut (s 124 of the Employment Reltions At) onsier the prtiility of reinsttement in employment s the primry remey for unjustifie ismissl, n reflet mixe result in n wr of osts. Sumitters views on minor irregulrities in proess Summry Employer sumitters generlly hel to the view tht minor proess irregulrities resulte in fir ismissls eing eeme unjustifie. This ws ompnie y the pereption of employers n employer representtives tht tiking the oxes of fir proess ws more importnt thn the sustntive issues. Some employers ientifie tht gp existe etween the requirements of the lw n the relity of eling with personl grievnes. 26

27 Unions n mny votes presente ontrry perspetive tht while minor irregulrities re often the sujet of omplint y employers this ws not supporte y the pproh of the Employment Reltions Authority or Employment Court, s eviene in their sttements or eisions. 73 Conern out the weight given to proess in personl grievnes ws wiespre mong employers, in prtiulr, the hne of minor irregulrities resulting in n employer eing foun to hve te unjustifily. Smll Business Avisory Group (SBAG) esrie efinite pereption tht form (tiking ll the proeurl oxes) is more importnt thn sustne. One employer quote y SBAG si tht in two ses the employees h een fruulent n oth got wy with tiny prt of the proess not eing followe. This sentiment ws reflete in the omment of one sumitter who si proess is king n this is where the employer struggles. 74 One employers orgnistion si tht require stnrs of ehviour h een elevte to level whih is lmost ounsel of perfetion. The onsequene of the weight given to proess efiienies, oring to Business New Zeln, ws tht mny employers lost ses unneessrily. In looking to the impt of proess on outomes, it expresse the view tht only ptent rehes of nturl justie shoul entitle n employee to ompenstion n suh rehes shoul not turn n otherwise justifie ismissl into one tht is unjustifie. 75 Some sumissions supporte the urrent lw, prtiulrly the requirement tht the employer follow fir proeure overll n these sumitters reognise tht eisions of the Court i not support the rgument tht minor shortomings oul rener ismissl unjustifie. One sumission from n emi, si tht: Some minor or inonsequentil flw or even flws tht re prt of proess tht is nevertheless fir n resonle overll, will not use ismissl tht is otherwise justifile in sustne to e elre unjustifile. 76 However, while this relity ws knowlege y some sumitters, they still onsiere their own experiene onflite with the view of the Courts. One sumission from puli setor orgnistion note: There is often more emphsis ple on exmining whether n employer hs followe n ext proess rther thn whether the employer hs followe fir proeure overll, n the eision is sustntively justifie. This ppers to e ontrry to the Court of Appel s view 77 This gulf etween experiene n eisions of the Court my in prt e expline y the point in the ispute t whih issues of proeurl firness re first rise n onsiere y mny employers. The New Zeln Mnufturers n Exporters Assoition sumitte tht in the erly stges of trying to settle grievne the fous ws lmost entirely on proeurl mtters. It note this emphsis ws pprent uring the risk ssessment of se t meition. While mny employers re represente t meition, this my e the first time n employer hs een tken through review of their tions in mking eision s oppose to fousing on the wrong oing of the employee who hs een ismisse or isipline. 78 The view tht minor irregulrities in proess will le to n unjustifile ismissl n ompenstion wrs ws strongly ountere in sumissions from employees, employee representtives, lw firms n emis. This ws esrie y one sumitter s employment folklore rising out of misleing politil lims. Mny sumissions emphsise tht sustne n proess were not mutully 27

28 exlusive. One sumission ws representtive of these views when it note tht the ssessment of grievne in lw ws one of overll firness n resonleness in ll the irumstnes of the prties n of the se. Unfir proess my le to n employer not mking fir n resonle eision to ismiss. The NZCTU pture this view in its omment: Proper proess les to proper eisions n ontrry to myth oserving the rules of nturl justie is strightforwr in most ses. The Polie Mngers Guil si it ws: vitl to engge in fir proess when unertking investigtions into llegtions whih oul le to eision whih results in worker losing his/her employment, in the Guil s se in one of its memers, losing their reer with Polie. The Guil insists tht the proess of ll investigtions e fir so s to ensure tht orret n fir eision is rrive t. 79 While strong pereptions previl out the impt of proess on the outome of personl grievne, three key issues were ientifie y sumitters in reltion to the effet of minor irregulrities of proess on the outome: The Employment Court hs onstntly emphsise tht minor proeurl shortomings will not rener n employer s eision unjustifile. The Employment Reltions Authority n the Employment Court re require to tke into ount the prtiility of reinsttement (s 125 of the Employment Reltions At) n the ontriutory onut of n employee (the ltter of whih my reue ompenstion y up to 100%). This provies mehnism to ress situtions where the employer s eision ws sustntively merite. The iniviul employer s resoures re to e tken into ount when etermining whether fir proess hs een followe, ressing some of the onern out the emns on smll usinesses to meet wht sumitters esrie s onerous requirements of fir proess with few of the resoures ville to lrge usinesses n orgnistions. 80 Mny sumissions supporte the pproh provie y the urrent test n were onerne t the impt of ny hnge on vulnerle employees, others sought hnges to eme the urrent lne more effetively. Sumitters views on the ojetive test Summry Sumissions on the ojetive test presente rnge of views. Some sumitters onsiere tht s 103 of the Employment Reltions At provie well-lne test for ssessing n employer s tions. Mny employers rgue there ws unertinty with the urrent lw n it shoul e mene. A few lle for its repel or replement with new test. 81 Employers, employer representtives, lw firms, n some emis vote hnge to the urrent lw, primrily pture s hnge from the wors wht resonle employer woul hve one to wht resonle employer oul hve one. These sumitters rgue: this woul inrese the options ville to the employer in ny set of irumstnes y llowing for more thn one ourse of tion to e open to n employer ting firly n resonly, n 28

29 it woul prevent the Employment Reltions Authority or Court from imposing their view on wht tion the employer shoul tke, in wht ws esrie s seon guessing the employer. 82 While some sumitters opposing the urrent lw vote repel, others were onerne tht this woul mke no or little ifferene, to the urrent se lw n me reommentions to men the lw. Business New Zeln si it ws onerne out the growing preeene of proess over sustne prior to the entment of s 103 of the Employment Reltions At n propose the following replement provision: for the purposes of susetions 103() n 103 (), the question of whether ismissl or n tion ws justifile must e etermine on n ojetive sis y tking ount of the options ville to the employer following onsiertion of the ville eviene, inluing ny prior knowlege the employee my hve h of the onsequenes of the tion or tions ompline of n/or the impt of tht tion or those tions on the employment reltionship. 83 Sumitters who vote retining the urrent test in lw, rgue tht it ws refletion of three ees of evolution in employment lw riefly isrupte y the eision referre to s Orm : W&H Newsppers v Orm [2001] 3 NZLR 29. Tht eision etermine ismissl shoul e juge on the sis of the employer s sujetive ssessment of its options. Sumitters rgue tht: there ws wie isretion ville to the employer through Orm, suh tht the employer s eision eme unhllengele exept in the most egregious ses position tht woul lrgely estroy personl grievne protetion the urrent test of justifition s wiespre in ommon lw, mking employment lw the exeption if ny hnge were to tke ple, n hnges woul rete onfusion n osts roun test litigtion. 84 Supporters of the urrent test rgue tht it i not limit the rnge of fir n resonle options for employers. They rgue the flexiility sought for y employers in the lw ws lote in the wors in ll the irumstnes, n in the pplition of remeies. As stte y Juge Trvis in Arthur D Reilley n o v Jessi Shron [2008] WC 08/8: The flexiility in onsiering the tions of n employer, whih hs file to follow its own poliy, hs een enhne y the introution of setion 103A. The setion requires the onsiertion of ll the employer s tions, n whether the wy the employer te ws wht fir n resonle employer woul hve one in ll the irumstnes. Disussion n nlysis 85 The min themes oming out of sumissions roun lne of firness re tht: while there is n overll sense of firness in the system, mny employers re onerne tht the system is ise ginst them the lw is not generlly onsiere omplex lthough mny employers fin it retes unertinty, it is iffiult n unler there is strong support for the priniples of nturl justie lthough mny employers n employer representtives onsiere tht too muh weight ws given to proess, n 29

30 the urrent test of justifition reeive wiespre support ut mny sumitters vote n menment to provie for rnge of resonle responses. 86 Sumissions from employers suggest the personl grievne system is not fir n tht it is ise towrs employees. Other sumitters ross ll groups si tht the system provies fir lne etween the interests of employers n employees. There re ontextul issues to onsier in reltion to the urrent regime, inluing the urrent employment reltions frmework n interntionl enhmrks: the ojet of the Employment Reltions At 2000, whih is to promote goo fith in ll spets of the employment reltionship, knowleging the inherent inequlity of power in employment reltionships, the ojet of Prt 9 of the Employment Reltions At 2000 whih reognises tht in resolving employment reltionship prolems ess to oth informtion n meition servies is more importnt thn herene to rigi n forml proeures, n Interntionl Lour Orgnistion Convention 158, whih, while not rtifie y New Zeln, provies enhmrk for fir prtie of the mngement of employment prolems, stting tht the employment of worker shll not e terminte unless there is vli reson for suh termintion n they shll e entitle to ppel ginst tht termintion to n imprtil oy. 87 Most employers n employer representtives si the system ws ise in fvour of employees resulting in employers tking n overly utious pproh when eling with prolems in the workple. These onerns were prtiulrly ute mong smll usiness sumitters. The pereive is is se on elief y sumitters tht there is unue emphsis on proeurl firness ompre with issues of sustne; tht there is not rnge of resonle responses ville to n employer ut one orret response only; n tht the Employment Reltions Authority n the Courts wrongly sustitute their own jugement for tht of the employer. 88 Sumissions from employers often rw on experienes of personl grievnes to illustrte pereive is. This sense of injustie of the system is reinfore y high profile ses tht re not lwys reporte in n even-hne wy (for exmple, ontriutory osts re often ignore in reporting osts wre). The pereive is is generlly se on the elief tht minor irregulrity in proess hs renere n otherwise justifie tion unjustifie. There ppers to e lk of knowlege of the personl grievne system mong some prties, who fin their ehviour uner srutiny for the first time when entering the system, in prtiulr: the personl grievne system is proess of review of the onut of the employer when tking tion ginst n employee if the employer s tions re foun wnting the ismissl my e unjustifie n remeies my e pproprite, n if the employee s ehviour hs ontriute the remeies my e reue to reognise their fult. 89 The pervsiveness of these onerns mong employers is importnt to onsier euse the wy employers view the system ffets their eisions out how to 30

31 hnle personl grievne lims. Choosing to py out n employee rther thn efen lim my e norml usiness eision. However, if it is the result of lk of onfiene in the firness of the system, it my isvntge employers n unermine the purpose, effetiveness n reiility of the system. 90 The rgument tht the lne in lw ws fir, or fvoure employers, ws strongly voie y sumitters n supplemente y se lw. The following key points re reiterte: the Employment Court hs repetely emphsise tht minor irregulrities in proess will not le to fining tht ismissl is unjustifile if the overll proess is fir (Lewis v Howik College Bor of Trustees [2010] NZEMPC 4) the sttutory test requires lne ssessment of oth proeure n sustne n not fous on proeure lone (Chief Exeutive of UNITEC Institute of Tehnology v Henerson [2007] 4 NZELR 418) the lw seeks to protet ginst unjust outomes through requirement tht remeies re reue to reognise ontriutory onut y n employee, up to the level of 100% ontriution. Further the Employment Reltions Authority n the Court re oun to tke into ount the imprtiility of ny lim for reinsttement, n the resoure limittions of n employer, suh s is the se for mny smll usinesses, re to e tken into ount when etermining if fir proess hs een followe, ountering the rgument tht the lw is one size fits ll. 91 Any system y whih n employee n hllenge n employer s tions is nturlly going to e regre with some level of suspiion y employers. If employers re onfient tht they will e trete firly y the system, they my feel less relutnt to prtiipte in it. Most sumitters i not onsier the system to e omplex ut mny employers foun it iffiult, the proess requirements unler, n the outomes unertin. There is n pprent nee for muh lerer pthwys for employers n muh more informtion n knowlege of the system so tht they re prepre in future n so tht they, n their employees, re equippe to mnge onflit when it rises. 31

32 4. Ensuring ess to justie 92 The Employment Reltions At 2000 reognises tht informtion n support ssists the prompt resolution of prolems n more suessful employment reltionships. However, ess to justie lso epens upon the level of pility of prties involve in personl grievne, suh s the ility to py for representtion n to ess the neessry informtion n vie. This setion fouses on the rriers to rising or efening personl grievne n how these rriers n e reue. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the rriers to rising or efening personl grievne Summry Most sumitters, who ientifie there were rriers, si tht these were prtiulrly mrke for some ommunities suh s low-wge workers, youth n migrnts. Mny sumitters si tht osts were ftor to either efening or rising personl grievne. Costs were esrie s either iret suh s seeking representtion or iniret, suh s preprtion time n loss of proutivity. The impt on the iniviul in their workple, fmily or ommunity, ws lso highlighte s rrier, for instne, the effet on helth through stress. Solutions looke prtiulrly t rising wreness n supporting erly resolution of onflit where osts oul e minimise. 93 Mny sumitters i not respon to this setion n those who i were evenly ivie etween those who ientifie tht rriers existe for prties n those who si there were no rriers. Some sumitters ientifie the lk of rriers s n issue on the grouns tht it enourge employees to rise grievne. 94 Most sumitters who ientifie there were rriers, si tht osts were ftor. Sumitters esrie two types of osts: iret osts suh s representtion n mges; n, iniret osts, suh s preprtion time n loss of proutivity. Essentil HR Limite surveye 31 lients out rriers n reporte tht of the 35% tht eie not to pursue grievne rise with them 100% me their eision euse of ost, 87% euse of the time involve n 50% ue to onern for proutivity. 95 Union sumitters inite tht the osts of pursuing grievne were isproportionte to the remeies sought n wre. One union si tht when employees were ismisse they were invrily short of money efore the proess egn. The NZCTU si tht there ws neotl eviene tht signifint legl ets were ommon mong employees who h tken personl grievnes to the Courts. They rgue tht the ost rriers were prtiulrly mrke for vulnerle employees euse settlement levels were low n there ws no lterntive ourse of tion, suh s ommon lw pursuit of mges or the right to strike. 96 The impt on the iniviul in their workple, fmily or ommunity ws highlighte s rrier in mny sumissions. Stress n the ssoite helth risks were ommon exmples of this. Sumissions tlke out the impt on the reputtion for employees - the stigm of eing involve in personl grievne in smll istrit, or for senior stff. A numer of ommunity lw entres n unions note the imlne of power in the workple ws rrier to rising grievne. Illustrting this, employee sumitters referre to the fer of retriution or vitimistion n the gossip pressure to ukle t work when grievne ws 32

33 tken while still in employment. Smll Business Avisory Group lso note tht it ws hrer to ly personl grievne while still t work. Other impts inlue: sense of loylty to the employer pereive loss of fe or reputtion, espeilly in smll lour mrket, n pereive thret to future prospets, suh s trining n opportunities. 97 Current legisltion provie soure of rriers for some sumitters. This inlue the right to reinsttement s primry remey, the lk of essiility to the Employment Reltions Authority, n the tril perio provision. The Puli Servie Assoition (PSA) note the tril perio restrition ws unfir n unresonle n tht they were not wre of eviene tht personl grievnes were n issue in this perio for smll or lrger workples. 98 Brriers in reltion to knowlege n vie were ommon in the sumissions. One employee si tht lk of knowlege n skill ws rrier to n unrepresente person fe with n experiene lwyer on the other sie. One emi, sumitte tht the lk of ess to fforle representtion in workfore with low levels of unionistion ws ompoune y the lk of essile informtion on informl mens of settling prolems. He note tht this ws often euse iniviul greements i not omply with the requirement to ontin plin lnguge explntion of the servies ville for prolem resolution. 99 Brriers roun ess to knowlege, support n remeies were onsiere y most sumitters to e of greter signifine for some groups in the ommunity thn others. These groups inlue non-stnr n low wge workers, youth, migrnts, people who spoke English s seon lnguge, workers with isilities, women, n Māori. The personl grievne legisltion itself ws not seen s posing rrier for most sumitters if they h some form of equte vie. 100 Brriers to efening lims fouse on the erly phses of onflit resolution. The Shools Trustees Assoition si the lk of goo fith in ommuniting the nture of grievne to n employer presente rrier to erly resolution, iting exmples of employers eoming wre of grievne for the first time when ontte y the meition servie. However, employer sumitters tene to e onerne t the pressure to resolve, n therefore not efen, grievne efore they inurre the osts ssoite with litigtion (iret n iniret). This ws ommonly referre to s ommeril eision to settle ses n not neessrily juge positively or negtively. Two speifi retions were: tht employers lke onfiene in the system or t lest in the outomes from the system, for instne, one lrge employer si the ost of efening lim n e rrier regrless of how frivolous the lim my e, n tht employers fer of the outome, oring to Business New Zeln, le some employers not to prtiipte in personl grievne lim n let the mtter run its ourse without their intervention. (They suggeste reserh into how mny ses re not efene n for wht reson.) 33

34 Sumitters suggestions for reuing the rriers 101 Brriers to rising or efening grievne euse of inequte or poor vie n lk of informtion oul e resse through improve informtion n ssistne for prties, in prtiulr, for smll usinesses. Suggestions inlue: proviing free vie, espeilly for smll usinesses (for exmple, through use of meition servies) Coe of Prtie to lrify s 103A of the Employment Reltions At 2000 eution for employers in hiring prties n performne mngement, n enhne requirements for informtion to e provie in employment greements out prolem resolution. 102 Rising the rriers to emrking on grievne ws often suggeste y employers s wy of eterring employees from pursuing frivolous lims, inluing: limits ple on who esses the system (suh s vulnerle employees or employees erning over $100,000) limits ple on the use of representtives t meition n the Authority rising the osts of the system to prties, inluing: i ii higher osts ginst unsuessful prties higher filing fees for employees iii penlties for unmerite lims, n reuing the time llowe for n employee to rise personl grievne with n employer from the urrent 90-y perio to 30 ys (see prs ) 103 Aressing rriers pose y the institutions, suh s: more timely provision of herings t the Employment Reltions Authority more ost effetive ess to meition servies n the Authority, for exmple through limittions of use of representtives t meition enhne meition servies, suh s: i ii prolem solving isussions prior to meition mntory meition iii ritrtion, for instne for lims elow $15,000, n iv enling meitors to ommunite with the Authority prior to hering, for instne, y mking reommention. 104 Removing the ost rriers involve in efening the pereive unmerite lims y: enling full ost reovery y the suessful prty penlising legl representtives for tking unmerite lims filtering out unmerite lims erly in the proess, n grnting the Authority the power to strike out frivolous ses. 105 Supporting qulity vie n ehviour y prties y: enling penlties for rehing proess n goo fith, n 34

35 regultion of votes. Disussion n nlysis 106 Avilility of informtion is feture of the proposls for improving the system throughout this report. Legisltive menments oul ssist, for instne, y proviing for requirement to inorporte itionl prolem-solving steps into n employment greement. Alterntively Coe of Prtie or promotionl mteril woul e less presriptive pproh to enhning prties unerstning of the requirements of ispute resolution. 107 Limits on ess to personl grievne through slry ps, or onstrints on representtion oul reue ost rriers ut onsiertion lso nees to e given to: the restritions on ess to justie for speifi groups of employees in the event of slry p the potentil to shift the osts to nother jurisition for high pi employees seeking lterntive routes to efen lim restritions on ess to justie for employees or employers lking the knowlege, skills or time to represent their own se, n the potentil for n uneven plying fiel where some prties my hve ess to support resoures (suh s in-house humn resoures) where others o not. 108 The role of meition servies in reuing osts ws nvsse in numer of wys. Firstly, y enhning the meitor powers to mke reommentions to the Authority, or giving finl n ining eision. Seonly, y reting more protive role for meitors in the filtering n filittion of prolems in vne of meition meeting. Deision-mking y meitors is resse in the responsiveness setion of this pper (see pges 51-54). In reltion to other wys to reue the rriers through meition: meitor reommention to the Authority on the merits of se my provie some ssurnes to prties tht these onerns will e resse protively n erly in the progress of the prolem within the system. However, onsiertion nees to e given to the potentil for suh hnge to lter: i ii the urrent role of meition s voluntry, flexile n onfientil, n the teneny for prties to ple more effort on prepring se for litigtion s oppose to prolem solving n erly exit from the system, thus inresing the osts for employees, employers n government low level filtering n filittion prior to forml meition meeting n e resse through internl poliies, leit with resoure implitions for meition servies. 35

36 5. Negtive impt of the responsiveness n timeliness of servies 109 The prompt resolution of prolems is ientifie in the Employment Reltions At s importnt to suessful employment reltionships (s 143 of the Employment Reltions At). This n e unermine y elys use y employers, employees, representtives or the institutions. This setion onsiers sumitters views on the impt of these elys n ies for improving responsiveness y proviing support for erly resolution of prolems n through hnges to oth meition servies n the Employment Reltions Authority. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the responsiveness n timeliness of the servies Summry Delys re ientifie y sumitters s n issue in the resolution of grievnes, however, mny o not see the elys s unresonle n solutions re often ssoite with resouring issues rther thn poor performne of the prtitioners in the system. While some of the elys trget the institutions, sumissions note the ttil or frught nture of ispute resolution, whih invrily entils elys y oth sies, intene n unintene. Most suggestions to enhne responsiveness were fouse on greter resouring of the institutions long with tighter timefrmes for meetings n eisions. 110 Mny sumitters either i not respon to this question or si tht there were no elys or the elys were not unexpete or unresonle. Those who i not respon my well hve sente on the sis tht they i not experiene elys. Less thn hlf the sumitters si there were elys in the proess n of those, thir h iffiulty with essing meition servies (primrily prolem ssoite with Aukln n the rurl lotions), n thir h elys witing for n Authority hering. Some sumitters si they experiene elys witing for Authority eisions, whilst others si tht the elys were ue to the ehviour, or vilility, of the other prty or the representtive. 111 Employees, employers n representtives referre to the emotionl n finnil stress use y elys. Costs were sometimes ssoite with prties refusing to tten meition resulting in eslting the prolem to the Authority. Employee sumitters referre to puli humilition n the finnil inseurity of eing without jo on top of the osts of representtion. One employee wrote: proess elys rete gret el of psyhologil impt soil isoltion, reltionship stress, self-out, low self esteem (of eing unemploye n eing run own y your employer) through to suiil thoughts. Belief in fir tretment is wht rives people to tke PG. Employer sumitters fouse on the impt on morle n proutivity in the workple, prtiulrly where the employment reltionship ws ongoing. They highlighte prolems ssoite with orgnistionl restrutures n replement of stff pening n outome of ismissl se. Sumitters views on the responsiveness n timeliness of the servies 112 Mny sumitters i not respon with suggestions out wys to improve responsiveness. Some sumitters si they h no prolem with the urrent system or no suggestions to mke. Where sumitters me suggestions, the gretest numer of suggestions ws roun inresing the resoures of the institutions. The min proposls inlue: inresing the numer of meitors 36

37 e f inresing the numer of Authority memers n resoures proviing trining for meitors n Authority memers enhne erly intervention meition new moel for ntionl meition servie elivery, n enhne informtion, trining, n guine for prties to resolve prolems erly n voi the nee for thir prty intervention. 113 Other suggestions fouse on reting more effiient system. Some sumitters wnte to ple time onstrints on prties essing meition n therey limit the numer of grievnes in the system n others wnte to limit the use of representtives t meition. Other ies inlue: shorter timefrmes for Authority herings n eisions enhne tehnology, suh s telephone meitions n eletroni filing of lims the filtering of smll lims or unmerite lims t meition, n greter use of ritrtion t meition, with the option of n ppelle eision. Sumitters views on finl n ining eisions from meition servies 114 Mny sumitters i not hve view of the role of meition servies in mking finl n ining eisions. However, some sumitters supporte this ie with one employee esriing it s n exellent improvement n SBAG sying it woul e exellent s it will provie efinite onlusion n etter thn going to Court. 115 A numer of vritions on eision-mking were propose inluing: Support for meitor s mking finl n ining eisions ontingent on the prties greeing to eision eing me. (This is little ifferent from the position of the 10 sumitters supporting the urrent regime given tht meitors n in ft mke eision uner s 150 of the Employment Reltions At if oth prties gree.) A system for low level lims similr to the ritrtion moel of the Disputes Triunl. A meitor reommention, s oppose to eision, tht sits on the tle for set perio of time for prties to gree, prior to eision y the pplint to proee to the Authority. 116 A numer of sumitters oppose the ie of meitors mking finl n ining eisions, s supporte it. Of those opposing finl n ining eisions, sumitters speifilly si tht they i not support it euse this ws not the meitors role n they were not, therefore, suffiiently skille to mke etermintions. Other sumissions note ethil onerns out eisions eing me y meitor, who hs just meite the se. Opposition to meitor eision-mking ws lso se on support for the priniple of meition proess s oppose to n ritrtion system. One employer sumission, for instne, supporte free n open ilogue etween prties seeking mutully stisftory outome, noting tht this woul not e possile in shift to ritrtion. Others were onerne tht it woul use n esltion of litigtion, n ssoite osts, 37

38 s prties sought to ppel eisions when greement might hve een rehe t meition. Disussion n nlysis 117 There re pprent elys in the system, oth with respet to meition servies n the Authority. However, these elys were ssoite s muh with the ehviour n vilility of representtives n prties to the ispute s with the witing times ssoite with the institutions. Solutions logilly involve inresing resoures n options ville erly in the ispute resolution proess to limit the numer of ses in the system or tighten up the effiieny of the urrent system. The suggestion tht meitors e given itionl powers to mke eisions i not reeive overwhelming support se lrgely on reognition of the vlue of meition ut lso on the pilities of meitors who re infrequently ske to eliver eisions uner s 150 of the Employment Reltions At. 118 While some suggestions were me for legisltive hnge, suh s the filtering of unmerite lims n more omprehensive ritrtion moel for meition servies, these hve een resse elsewhere in this report. A numer of suggestions were me tht oul enhne the effiieny of the system through ministrtion of servies without reourse to sttutory levers, inluing the use of tehnology, n informtion n guine for employers n employees. 38

39 6. Employment reltionship prolems pper to impt isproportiontely on smll n meium-size enterprises 119 Resolving employment reltionship prolems ppers to hve greter proportionl effet on smll n meium-size enterprises (SMEs) thn on lrger workples. This setion ske sumitters whether the government oul o more to ssist SMEs to resolve employment reltionship prolems. It lso ske whether the reent introution of tril perios h reue personl grievnes. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on support for smll n meium-size enterprises Summry Sumitters from ross ll groups fvoure inresing eution n guine to employers n employees. Suggestions fouse on options tht woul reue the likelihoo of personl grievne rising in the workple. The mjority of employers n employer representtives si tht tril perios h reue the risk of personl grievnes n they supporte inresing the sope of the urrent lw. Other sumitters, inluing employee representtives, were oppose to ny hnges on the sis of opposition to the priniple of tril perios or euse there ws insuffiient eviene of its effetiveness. 120 The mjority of sumissions on this question me reommentions on wht further support the government, or other prties, oul provie to workples, prtiulrly SMEs. Mny of these suggestions were lso rise in responses to other prts of the isussion pper. Some sumitters lso querie whether the government h role in proviing support or shoul rete ifferent poliy settings for SMEs. 121 Most of the sumitters who ommente on this question, were in fvour of government support. The most ommon resons given were se on the ifferenes in SMEs pility n resoures when ompre with lrger workples. Other resons inlue tht government support, prtiulrly if it fouse on erly invention, woul help to prevent prolems n tht it woul hve eonomi enefits, suh s inrese proutivity. 122 However, quite few sumitters thought tht the government shoul not e reting ifferent rules for usinesses se on their size. This ws mostly seen s eing unfir on employees s it rete system where employees hve ifferent rights se on the size of their workple. 123 The most ommon suggestions for further government support for SMEs were: inrese or improve guine n eution for employers n employees on ll spets of employment reltionships (provie y the Deprtment of Lour or y thir prties) simplifying the proesses for SMEs roun reruiting, personl grievnes n ismissls n vie or help line for SMEs, prtiulrly one tht oul provie free legl vie (through the Deprtment of Lour or thir prty) informtion out how to ess humn resoure support or proviing SMEs with free legl or humn resoure-relte vie 39

40 e f g h i j oe of employment prtie promoting n rising wreness of the mterils n support lrey ville, inluing the enefits of elonging to employer orgnistions n unions reuing frivolous or unmerite lims (for instne, filtering out these lims prior the Employment Reltions Authority meeting n imposing penlties for limnts who pursue frivolous ses) mening legisltion relting to the test of justifition (s 103A of the Employment Reltions At) or tril perios wesite n/or online tools, inluing templtes for employers to use, n legl i for SMEs. Sumitters views on tril perios 124 Mny sumitters ommente on whether the tril perio provisions shoul e hnge. A few sumitters si tht there shoul e no hnge or tht the urrent provisions re suffiient. Mny sumitters i not hve iret experiene of tril perios (e.g. lrge employers). 125 Employers generlly onsiere tht tril perios h helpe y reuing the numer of personl grievnes n reuing the risks roun employing new people. A few sumitters si tht tril perios h not helpe or reue personl grievnes, for instne, two sumitters lime tht employees were now tking personl grievnes on other grouns, suh s unjustifie isvntge. 126 Some sumitters pointe out tht the numer of personl grievnes woul logilly reue euse tril perios exlue some people from rising grievne n others si tht it ws too erly to tell wht impt tril perios hve h. Sumissions from unions n some emis were oppose to the tril perio provisions. 127 A ouple of sumitters si tht there ws low wreness out tril perios n how they worke. One sumitter, for instne, si tht tril perios were too omplex n nother tht it ws hr to ismiss someone on tril perio. 128 Of those sumitters tht reommene hnges, the most ommon hnges were to the size of the workples overe or the urtion of the tril perio. These views were expresse y employers n employer representtives, n inlue: extening tril perios to ll employers, regrless of their size extening tril perios to employers with employees inresing the tril perio, for instne, to six months, n inluing personl grievnes for unjustifie isvntge in the tril perio. Disussion n nlysis 129 While some sumitters questione the role of the stte intervening in the mngement of usiness, most sumitters supporte muh more informtion, ess to vie n wreness of the system of personl grievnes. For mny employers the tril perios h worke effetively n the most populr proposl ws n extension of this to lrger workples. Employees, unions n some other sumitters were onerne t the lk of onrete eviene of the impt of the tril perios n generlly oppose the poliy. Legisltive proposls to support 40

41 SMEs, inluing hnges to the test of justifition, re rise elsewhere in this report. 41

42 7. Eligiility rising personl grievne 130 This setion overs sumitters views on whether one set of rules shoul pply to ll employees. The setion overs sumitters views on: whether ifferent eligiility rules shoul pply to ifferent employees the equy or ppropriteness of the 90-y limittion perio for rising personl grievne, n the ppropriteness of the three-yer limittion perio for loging personl grievne with the Authority or Court. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on whether ifferent eligiility rules shoul pply to ifferent types of employees Summry Most sumitters i not support ifferent eligiility rules pplying to ifferent types of employees euse they onsiere tht the lw shoul pply eqully to ll employees. The most ommon grouns vote for hnges to eligiility rules were ernings, seniority n servie. The mjority of sumitters oppose introuing slry p limittion. 131 The mjority of sumitters who ommente on this question i not support ifferent eligiility rules pplying to ifferent types of employees. Sumitters from ll groups si tht the lw shoul pply eqully to ll employees. One sumitter pture the sentiment of mny, sying ll employees shoul hve the sme ess to justie or ll people shoul e equl uner the lw. 132 A few sumitters ommente tht it woul e reh of nturl justie to remove n employee s right to tke personl grievne: There is no justifition for ny ifferene of eligiility pplying to ifferent types of employees. The right to rise personl grievne is funmentl priniple of nturl justie. 133 Other resons for not supporting pplying ifferent eligiility rules were tht: it woul e isrimintory to pply ifferent rules for ifferent types of employees people of ll ges, slry levels or work experiene n still e trete unfirly in the workple there is no merit in pplying ifferent rules, n it woul only omplite mtters for employers euse it woul e iffiult for them to mnge ifferent rules for ifferent groups. 134 A minority of sumitters onsiere tht ifferent eligiility rules shoul pply to ifferent groups of employees. These views were ommonly expresse y employers n employer representtives. Some of the options for limiting eligiility re: the employee s ernings ( numer of sumitters reommene p of $100,000) 42

43 the employee s position in the ompny (for instne, CEO n Bor oul negotite their own outomes), n the employee s length of servie (sumitters suggeste perios of etween three months to yer). Slry ps 135 Sumitters were ske for their views on limiting the ility of employees erning over speifi slry mount from rising personl grievne ( slry p limittion). The mjority of sumitters oppose introuing slry p limittion. 136 Sumitters gve the following resons for opposing slry p limittion: e f g it woul e unfir n unjust (ehoing sumitters generl views on introuing ifferent eligiility requirements) it ws unneessry s there ws no eviene of prolem, rguing tht most high pi employees settle t meition the impt of eing unjustifily ismisse ws the sme regrless of n employee s ernings high pi employees re less likely to tke personl grievne euse their reputtions re more likely to e mge y the proess, reuing their hnes of gining employment with nother employer suh limittion oul e use to ismiss senior employees for no goo reson high pi employees my e the most vulnerle to unjustifie ismissls (for exmple, if they work to Bor of Diretors), n ny p (unless it is set very high) is likely to pture employees who re not intene to e overe. 137 A few sumitters note tht one onsequene of introuing slry p limittion woul e tht high pi employees resort to hllenging their ismissl uner ommon lw. This woul inrese the osts of litigtion euse mges woul e set uner higher rte thn personl grievnes n longer limittion perio woul pply (six yers). 138 A minority of sumitters supporte introuing slry p limittion for the following resons: it woul reognise tht senior employees hve more rgining power thn lower pi employees (for exmple, senior employees re etter ple to negotite their exit pkges) it woul provie more ertinty on the legl sttus of exit pkges it woul enourge ountility y senior employees, n the osts of personl grievne were too high for some employers, prtiulrly SMEs when high pi employee ws involve. A ouple of sumitters note tht SMEs oul e versely impte y the finnil osts of personl grievne se if lrge mount ws wre to the employee. 139 A few sumitters onsiere tht the proposl shoul e moelle on the Austrlin system whih exlues esignte levels of employees from essing the personl grievne proess. 43

44 Sumitters views on the equy n/or ppropriteness of the 90-y limittion perio for rising personl grievne Summry Most employers n employer representtives onsiere tht the 90-y limittion perio ws not equte or pproprite. They onsiere tht it ws etter for oth prties if issues were rise s quikly s possile to the tul event. Employers onsiere tht the 90 y perio risks mging the employment reltionships n lso inrese osts. Employee representtives n emis onsiere the 90 y perio to e oth equte n pproprite euse it llowe employees time to resolve issues in the workple, seek vie n onsier ll of the impts of rising personl grievne. The most ommon suggestion for n equte n/or pproprite perio for rising personl grievne ws 30 ys. 140 The mjority of sumitters onsiere tht the 90-y limittion perio ws neither equte or pproprite. The most ommon resons given were tht: 90 ys is long perio for employers to e unertin out whether personl grievne woul e rise ginst them it hs negtive impt on the integrity of eviene inluing the vilility of witnessess. The ely prejuies employers, in prtiulr, s they my fe inresing prtil prolems in efening the lim it is etter for oth prties if issues re rise s quikly s possile fter the event, n the 90-y perio risks mging the employment reltionships n inreses osts. 141 Sumitters who onsiere the 90-y perio to e oth ppropite n equte ommente tht: it llows employees time to seek vie on the merits of their se n onsier ll of the impts of rising personl grievne it enourges employees to try n resolve the issue in the workple where n employee is ismisse for reunny, it llows time for more informtion to ome to light tht my men the ismissl ws unjustifie, n employers hve longer perio in whih to ring ommon lw lims ginst employees (six yers). 142 A few sumitters onsiere tht the 90-y limittion ws not enfore stritly enough. They onsiere tht exeptionl irumstnes pplitions re too frequently grnte to llow personl grievne pplitions to e me out of time. 143 The most ommon suggestion for n equte n/or pproprite perio for rising personl grievne ws 30 ys. Sumitters views on the ppropriteness of the three yer limittion perio for loging personl grievne with the Employment Reltions Authority n Employment Court Summry Most employers n employer representtives onsiere tht the three yer limittion perio ws not pproprite. They onsiere tht it i not promote speey or effiient 44

45 resolution of employment reltionship prolems. Employee representtives n emis onsiere the three-yer perio to e pproprite given tht the time limit for ivil lims ws six yers. The most ommon suggestion for n pproprite perio for loging personl grievne with the Authority n Court ws one yer. 144 The mjority of sumitters onsiere tht the three-yer limittion perio for loging personl grievne with the Authority n Court ws not pproprite. Sumitters views oth for n ginst the three-yer limittion perio were similr to their views for n ginst the 90-y limittion perio. 145 Sumitters who reommene shortening the three yer limittion perio note tht: the three-yer perio is t os with one of the ojetives of the system whih is the speey resolution of employment reltionship prolems it eroes the likelihoo of full n fir hering if three yers n elpse etween notie eing given to n employer of personl grievne lim (whih is often not prtiulrise) n ler sttement of prolem eing file in the Authority employers my feel tht the lim is not importnt if it is not quikly pursue y the employee, n it is prolemti for the employer when the employee seeks reinsttement fter three yers. 146 A few sumitters onsiere three yers to e too short when ompre with the six-yer limittion perio in ivil ses. They note tht employees my ely loging personl grievne for finnil or helth resons or if they re unle to otin suitle representtion. 147 The most ommon suggestion for n pproprite perio for loging personl grievne with the Authority n Court ws one yer. A ouple of sumitters note tht ny shortening of the three-yer perio will eny resolution of legitimte personl grievnes. Disussion n nlysis 148 Sumissions on eligiility for employees rising grievne mostly supporte the onept tht ll employees shoul hve equl ess to justie regrless of ge, inome or experiene. While some rgue tht slry p woul reue osts to SMEs n enourge ountility of senior employees exlue from the system, others rgue tht the osts woul e inrese s high pi employees sought reourse uner ommon lw. 149 Limittions on eligiility nee to tke into ount tht ommon lw lims hve longer six-yer perio of limittion, whih is ville to the employer in ny lim ginst n employee, Further, osts ssoite with mges oul eslte if ses re trnsferre to the ivil ourts, given longer limittion perio of six yers in ommon lw. 150 The urrent 90-y limittion perio for rising grievne n three yer perio for loging lim in the Authority or the Court ws not supporte y employers or their representtives. While employers onsiere these perios of time imprtil n inonsistent with speey resolution of workple prolems, other sumitters rgue tht it protete employees wishing to pursue legitimte lims. Arguments 45

46 tht time onstrints woul isourge opportunisti lims nee to e lne with the nee to ensure equte ess to justie for employees who my e unjustifily trete. While there is strong pereption tht opportunisti lims re ommon it is not evient tht frivolous lims re signifint feture of the personl grievne system. 151 A reution in time for rising grievne ws vote on the sis of interntionl experiene, suh s the Unite Kingom n Austrli. It is useful to rw on interntionl experiene whih hs rnge of limits on essing employment institutions for grievnes. New Zeln urrently reflets the Unite Kingom n Cn with its 90-y provision ut this is greter thn Austrli s reent Fir Work At tht provies for 14 ys. 46

47 8. Effetiveness of remeies 152 If n employee pursues personl grievne through the Employment Reltions Authority or Employment Court, rnge of remeies n e grnte. Reinsttement is reognise s the primry remey in the Employment Reltions At This setion of the isussion pper ske sumitters for their views on reinsttement s the primry remey. It lso ske for sumitters views on the effetiveness of the urrent remeies ville n suggestions for improvements. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the effetiveness of remeies Summry Sumitters views iverge on reinsttement s primry remey with employers n employers representtives generlly oppose to its sttus s primry remey lthough supportive of reinsttement s n ville remey in the legisltion. Other sumitters, inluing unions, onsiere reinsttement to e n importnt n fir remey tht oul restore employees to the position they were in efore ismissl. While mny onsiere the urrent rnge of remeies to e equte others si they were ineffetive t reuiling employment reltionships, overly fouse on finnil settlement, or too low to e effetive. Suggestions for mking remeies more effetive inlue two ivergent views: setting eiling on ompenstory wrs; n inresing wrs. There ws lso interest from ll groups of sumitters in mking greter use of non-finnil remeies, inluing eution, ounselling, jo serh ssistne or trining. Sumitters views on reinsttement s the primry remey 153 Mny employer sumissions generlly onsiere tht reinsttement shoul e remove s the primry remey, ut most si it shoul still e retine s remey. They si reinsttement ws seen s not eing n effetive or prtil option, noting: the proess of tking personl grievne ws likely to use ill-feeling etween the prties it ws rrely sought or grnte, n employees were elieve to use reinsttement s leverge to get employers to settle. 154 Other sumitters, inluing employees, employee representtives si tht reinsttement shoul remin s the primry remey. They si: reinsttement ws importnt s the only wy to genuinely restore n employee who is unjustifily ismisse to the sme position they were in efore the ismissl it ws n importnt remey where n employee is unle to fin lterntive employment removing reinsttement s the primry remey woul remove the fous on reuiling reltionships n inrese the fous on finnil remeies rther thn resolving employment reltionship prolems, n it woul enourge unjustifie ismissls. 47

48 155 Some sumitters onsiere tht reinsttement shoul only e the primry remey in prtiulr irumstnes, se on imensions suh s the size of the workple, the type of grievne or the length of time tken to resolve the personl grievne. Sumitters view on irumstnes when reinsttement is not pproprite 156 The most ommon irumstnes when reinsttement ws onsiere to not e pproprite were: e when the employment reltionship h irretrievly roken own n there ws loss of trust etween the prties if reinsttement ws not prtile, for instne where the grievne h rete ill-feelings etween the prties, if other stff memers i not wish the limnt to return to the workple or the employee h een reple when lot of time h elpse efore the Authority or Court hering s it me it hrer to reinstte where ismissl ws justifie on sustntive resons ut n inorret proess ws followe, n for prtiulr types of ismissl, suh s reunny, serious misonut n sexul hrssment. 157 A few sumitters ommente tht the Authority n the Court were est ple for ssessing whether reinsttement is pproprite. Sumitters experienes with reinsttement 158 Some employer sumitters ommente on their experienes with n tul reinsttement or where n employee h ttempte to e reinstte. Some reinsttements h positive outomes suh s the resolution of the tul prolems tht le to the grievne or reltionship tht ws restore n h flourishe. Other reinsttements were seen s hving negtive outome. Employers si reinsttement h use reltionships in the workple; the reinstte employee h not hnge their ehviour; n the reinstte employee fe resistne from mngers or other employees tht susequently use them to resign. In few ses, the prties h gree to finnil settlement inste of reinsttement or the Authority h not grnte reinsttement. Sumitters view on the effetiveness of urrent remeies 159 The mjority of sumitters who nswere this question thought tht the urrent remeies were ineffetive t reuiling employment reltionships. They ite n unue fous on finnil remeies s oppose to prolem solving n the ill-feeling generte etween the prties in the proess of eling with the onflit. 160 Mny sumitters thought tht the urrent rnge of remeies were effetive, equte or pproprite. However, some sumitters si tht the mounts urrently wre were too low to fully reflet the negtive impts the prolem h on limnts n i not provie n inentive for employers to improve their ehviour. Conversely, some felt tht the mounts wre were too high n enourge unmerite lims. Other employer sumitters felt tht finnil remeies were punitive n generlly ise ginst them. 161 A smll numer of sumitters thought tht there shoul e more informtion on wht remeies re ville n the mounts tht re wre. This ws seen s 48

49 wy to eute employers n employees n to ssist the mngement of expettions. Sumitters suggestions for improving remeies 162 Suggestions for improvement fouse on finnil remeies. These inlue: e f setting mximum remeies ville, inluing p se on slry or servie hving minimum remeies regulting inrese remeies for hurt n humilition removing wrs for hurt n humilition n only proviing ompenstion for lost wges or opportunities hving more onsisteny roun the mounts wre, n osts wrs tht reflet tul osts of representtion n non monetry osts, suh s proutivity. 163 A numer of sumitters were lso intereste in greter use of non-finnil remeies. These inlue eution ourses for employers to prevent prolems in the future, proviing support for employees suh s jo serh ssistne, trining n ounselling. A few sumitters thought tht n pology shoul e remey ville t the Authority ( remey inorporte into mny meition settlements). 164 There ws lso support for greter trnspreny on the eisions me out pproprite remeies. Proposls to support this inlue reommention tht the Authority e empowere to proue prtie notes n tht guielines re issues on the wrs me n the sis for reinsttement eing suessful. Disussion n nlysis 165 The Employment Reltions At 2000 ples emphsis on the importne of reinsttement s remey (s 101 of the Employment Reltions At) n the requirement for the prtiility of reinsttement in ny speifi instne to e tken into ount (s 125 (2) of the Employment Reltions At). However, there is strong employer opposition to reinsttement s primry remey, lthough mny supporte it s one ville remey. Other sumitters onsiere it s the only wy to genuinely restore sitution for n employee who is unjustifily ismisse n to isourge employers from onuting unjustifie ismissls. The relity is tht reinsttement is not ommonly wre s remey euse it is often not sought y the employee, or prtile for the employer. The impt of suh hnge my not e signifint if reinsttement remins s one ville remey lthough the urrent fous on fostering proutive employment reltionships is rguly ilute. 166 Mny sumitters propose inresing or reuing finnil remeies ville, inluing through sttutory menment. Currently, eisions out remeies re guie y lw n mny sumissions onsiere this the pproprite proess n i not vote hnge. The lk of lrity for lrge numer of sumitters out the sis for remeies suggests tht guine in the form prtie notes issue y the Authority n well-puliise mteril on urrent lw my go some wy to ressing this onern. 49

50 ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS AT AN EARLY STAGE 167 The im of the Employment Reltions At 2000 is to ensure meition servies re provie in wys tht re most likely to resolve the prolem. There re mny wys y whih the qulity n timeliness of servies oul e improve. This setion resses sumitters views on: the flexiility of urrent servies the possiilities for erly intervention the provision of on-line tools, n more systemi pproh to ressing workple prolems through meition servies. Summry of sumissions Sumitters views on the flexiility n ptility of meition Summry The Deprtment of Lour s meition servies ws onsiere goo n flexile system for ispute resolution with reommentions fousing on enhne erly resolution of prolems n ntionl onsisteny of elivery. Suggestions were generlly ime t greter hoie n vilility rther thn ltertions to urrent prtie. 168 Mny sumitters i not respon to Prt D in the isussion pper on meition servies ut those who i were generlly supportive of the urrent meition servies esriing it s equte, exellent n flexile. One sumitter esrie meition servies s user frienly, esy to use servie, even efore grievne is formlly rise. 169 Suggestions were me to inrese the powers of meitors (s referre to in erlier setions) ut mny suggestions were lso me out prtie n essiility, inluing: greter flexiility of venues to servie rurl res n hours of work to support smll usinesses erlier involvement of meitors in prolem resolution to support rpportuiling, evlution of ses n settlement t soure, inluing meition in lol res n t worksites. SCA Hygiene Austrlsi, for instne, suggeste employment ohing: He/she woul her from oth sies, seek informtion n then oh oth sies to try lterntive pprohes efore it goes to Meition, n use of phone meitions, s in the Unite Kingom, n tehnology for prties less omfortle with fe-to-fe forml meetings, for exmple, SBAG quote n employee sying my employee ws relly nsty n it wsn t goo eing in the sme room. 170 While mny sumitters were stisfie with the stnr of meition, esrie y one employer s outstning, others me reommentions in reltion to their professionl sttus. Aritrtors n Meitors Institute of New Zeln (AMINZ) suggeste wrrnting meitors n mking lists ville of trine meitors n votes, n Dispute Resolution Servies reommene memership of professionl oy suh s AMINZ (it is to e note tht urrent Deprtment of Lour meitors re memers of professionl oy, LEADR). 50

51 171 Chnges to the struture of the meition servies inlue: i ii two sumissions tht reommene hief meitor to ssist onsisteny, qulity of meitors n pproprite llotion of ses nother sumission promote ntionl servie, seprte from the proseutoril servies of the Deprtment of Lour (e.g. the lour inspetorte) to ensure there is no pereption of onflit etween the servies iii speilise meitors (suh s Mori or setor n inustry speilistion) who oul e selete for their speilist expertise Sumitters views on erly intervention meition servies 172 Of the 219 sumitters, the mjority supporte erly intervention meition servies. Almost hlf of the sumissions supporte the onept either from priniple position tht employment reltionship prolems re more quikly n suessfully resolve the erlier the prolem is resse, or from sense tht more support oul e provie to ensure erly resolution of isputes. One legl viser si I think this woul e the most signifint hnge tht oul e me. These sumitters si tht it oul sve time n money n support proutivity s long s oth prties gree to the intervention. 173 A few sumitters expresse ontrry view, with some sying it ws not neessry n tht it ws unrelisti euse of resoures, n others si tht it ws ieologilly unpltle. Sumitters views on n online employment prolem resolution tool 174 The mjority of the 219 sumitters i not ress this question. However, mny sumitters si they supporte n/or woul use n online tool for prolem resolution with minority sying tht it woul epen on ftors suh s the ontent n the user-frienliness of the tool. Some sumitters si they woul not use suh tool, minly iting the importne of fe-to-fe ommunition in solving isputes ut others expresse onerning t the tool etrting from urrent servies provie y the Deprtment of Lour, suh s meition or eution servies. One union si it woul e of more vlue for the Deprtment of Lour to provie eution progrmmes to ress mngement skills/knowlege efiit. Sumitters views on the use of meition in helth n sfety 175 A minority of sumitters si they woul use meition servies for helth n sfety mtters, some si tht they woul not n few si they woul onsier it. Most people i not respon to this question. A numer of sumitters si they i not nee this servie, for instne, one employer sumission si tht they hve ess to Deprtment of Lour experts when require ut they onsiere ftse pproh more pproprite thn using meition servies. Two emi sumissions reflete numer of omments when they si tht it ws inpproprite euse helth n sfety involve rehes of riminl lw where the onern is whether the environment met helth n sfety requirements or whether n injury oul form the sis of proseution. Others were supportive of meition supplementing enforement in the riminl ourts y ressing iffiult prolems tht n e resolve through erly intervention. 51

52 Sumitters views on systemi pprohes to prolem resolution 176 Proviing systemi pproh to working with usinesses to ientify ptterns n trens n to provie feek n options ws supporte y mny sumitters. Some supporte the elements of the pper whih referre to meitors proviing ptterns, trens n feek n others were enthusisti out ny support tht oul e offere, in prtiulr, to smll usinesses. However, mny of the sumitters tht supporte this pproh were onerne out oth pility n pity issues, nmely: tht it i not etrt from urrent meition resoures, prtiulrly resourestrethe rurl res, n tht meitors were suffiiently trine in ommeril relities n in the humn resoures fiel to mnge the extene role. 177 Opposition to the protive pproh y meition servies ws voie y some sumitters. One onern ws tht meitors woul e interfering in the mrket, s one employer si this whole proess leves it open for the stte to tell usiness how it shoul e run. Other sumitters me the following points in opposition to the protive pproh suggeste: the imprtil role of meitors oul e jeoprise n the effetiveness of urrent meition reue s onsequene of ny shift in fous (s one sumitter suggeste ing funtions my lou the imge n funtions of the meition servie ) it woul etrt from the urrent work n resoures of meition, n meitors re not skille to o this kin of work. Disussion n nlysis 178 Mny sumitters were stisfie with the sttus quo n the urrent effetive servie offere. However, wie rnge of types of intervention were lso suggeste y sumitters from ohing to ritrtion. Erly ispute resolution ws reognise y most sumitters s vlule for ll prties. Sumissions ientifie ifferent types of support tht oul ssist prties resolve the prolem efore meition n without reourse to ostly voy. Ies inlue vie, informtion (inluing multi-lnguge pulitions), eution events, online tools n even simple 10 step/point guie to e stuk on the wll of every employer to ensure urte informtion out proesses. 179 Mny sumitters ientifie onstrutive role for meition in erly resolution of onflit. There ws strong support from employer sumitters for meitions to our t worksites, or in lose proximity to workples n some suggeste greter vilility of meitors outsie norml working hours. However, it ws reognise in the sumissions tht to e effetive in this wy meitors woul nee to e ville t short notie n tht this woul require inrese resouring of meition servies. 180 The role of meition in filtering out unmerite lims n in ssisting prties to ientify the issues n the risks of lim, in vne of meition, ws theme throughout the sumissions. Using sttutory levers suh s ppelle eisions (s 150 of the Employment Reltions At), with ost wrs ginst for the unsuessful prty, is rise elsewhere in this report. Non-sttutory methos suggeste y sumitters to hieve this inlue: 52

53 pre-meition ssessment n vie n online tool n questionnires relting to speifi isputes telephone meition, n on-site vie n support to prties in vne of rising personl grievne. 181 Most sumissions supporte the urrent elivery of meition through the Deprtment of Lour. However, some sumissions propose new moels of elivery, suh s n inepenent servie, privte meition n puliise lists of meitors. These options nee to e weighe up ginst the osts to prties of funing privte meition when lrey personl grievne osts re onsiere generlly too high n the potentil for the neutrlity of puli servie to e unermine y servies pi for y one or other prty. 182 Some sumitters lso suggeste tht the Deprtment of Lour revert to ntionl meition servie with hief meitor, in orer to enhne ntionlly-oorinte n professionlly-le servies. The urrent rrngement provies for ntionl servie elivere regionlly with the ility to move resoures roun the ountry s require. Professionl leership is provie y ntionl prtie tem n meitors re mnge lolly. This is esigne to enle oth professionl leership n effiient mngement of stff involve in meition servies. 53

54 GENERAL QUESTIONS 183 Three generl questions t the en of Prt C: Opertion of the Personl Grievne System, sought views from sumitters in reltion to: hnges to the employment reltions legisltion tht oul mke ifferene to proutivity three key hnges to the personl grievne system, n ny other issues in reltion to the personl grievne system. Improving proutivity hnges to the employment reltions legisltion 184 A numer of sumitters suggeste hnges to other spets of the Employment Reltions At 2000 or other Ats suh s the Holiys At 2003 for improving proutivity tht re outsie of the sope of the personl grievne. Below is list of the most ommon suggestions for hnge: Employment Reltions At 2000 e f g men provisions relting to olletive rgining restrit union ess to workples men or repel Prt 6A (ontinuity of employment) rise mngement pility enle prties to n employment greement to ontrt out of provisions more flexiility roun mel n rest reks, n provie more support n informtion provision for employers on how to hire n fire employees. Holiys At 2003 review the Holiys At 2003, n remove the lultion of relevnt ily py. Other suggestions n omments rising the minimum wge hnges to ACC, n legisltion is not relte to improving proutivity. 185 Chnges to the personl grievne system n proess regring proutivity were lso suggeste, most of whih hve lrey een resse in the erlier setions of this report n re lso liste uner the following question. Sumitters suggestions for min res of hnge in the personl grievne system 186 Mny sumitters felt the system ws working well ut h views on key hnges tht oul mke the personl grievne system operte more effetively n effiiently (most of whih hve een isusse in this report lrey). Below is list of the most ommon suggestions for hnge: Costs limit representtion t erly stge of resolution proess 54

55 introue filtering system to remove unmerite/wek personl grievnes erlier in the proess, n introue rnge of penlties to ress non-ompline, enourge enforement of settlements, isinentivise frivolous/vextious personl grievnes, unsrupulous ehviour y prties/representtives. Representtion introue stnrs for representtives. Blne of firness n test of justifition (setion 103A) hnge test of justifition for personl grievnes to mke it lerer, rete more ertinty n less emphsis on proess over sustne evelop Coe of Prtie for ismissls simplify the proess for ismissl, n etter guine mteril on mtters relte to personl grievne for employers, e.g. n outline of the steps for reunny proess; wht is fir n resonle employer. Aess to justie wreness rising n informtion provision of the personl grievne system n proess; n on employers n employees rights, responsiilities n oligtions. Timeliness n responsiveness of servies provision of more resoures to meition servies n Employment Reltions Authority to ese their worklo improve timefrmes for otining n investigtion meeting t the Employment Reltions Authority n etermintion, n review the effetiveness of the Employment Reltions Authority. Support for SMEs inrese support n trining for SME employers on their rights n responsiilities, n the personl grievne system, n extening the urtion of tril perios n/or extening tril perios to lrger size usinesses. Eligiility reue the three yer limittion perio for loging personl grievne in the Employment Reltions Authority, n reue the 90 y limittion perio for rising personl grievne with the employer. Remeies remove reinsttement s primry remey, n review finnil remeies, e.g. ps on ompenstion, remove ompenstion wrs. 55

56 Meition servies improve pility n essiility to meitors inrese the power n role of meitors ompulsory meition, n inrese fous on erly intervention n self-resolution. Other ress other issues relte to personl grievnes e.g. restrint of tre, injuntions n fixe term employment greements. Other issues rise y sumitters 187 Mny of the omments rise uner this question hve lrey een resse in other prts of this report. However, summry of the other ommon issues rise y sumitters in reltion to the urrent personl grievne system inlue: e onerns regring the wiving of the 13 week stn-own perio for people to reeive n unemployment enefit whilst pursuing personl grievne. This ws seen y employer sumitters s potentil inentive for people to rise personl grievne New Zeln shoul se its personl grievne system similr to tht of Austrli n Cn ny removl or restrition on the right to tke personl grievne oul reh interntionl oligtions ny hnges shoul e se on tul rther thn pereive prolems more reserh shoul e onute, for exmple: i ii impt of employment issues on fmily n friens nlysis on wht hppens in the Employment Reltions Authority n Employment Court n employees experienes of meition servies, the Employment Reltions Authority n Employment Court, n iii key issues of proeurl firness n remeies. 56

57 APPENDIX 1: SUBMISSION QUESTIONS Prt C: Opertion of the Personl Grievne system Question 1: Hve you een involve in personl grievne? If so, when ws your most reent experiene of personl grievne? Were you n employee, employer, representtive for n employee or employer, or involve in some other pity in the personl grievne proess? How mny personl grievnes hve you een involve in? Question 2: If you hve een involve in personl grievne se, n you esrie how fr the se went in the prolem resolution proess? (for exmple, meition servies, the Employment Reltions Authority or Employment Court?) Wht ws the outome? (If you hve een involve in more thn one se n you esrie the institutions involve n the outome from the most reent se?) 1. The ost of prolem resolution Question 3: Costs in regrs to employers: Do you think the verge ost of settling personl grievne of $5,000 (or $3,000 in the instne of n SME) is resonle? In your experiene re these osts higher or lower thn other ivil or legl isputes? If you think the osts re not resonle wht woul e resonle ost? Costs in regrs to oth employers n employees: e f To wht extent (if ny) oes the verge ost of settling personl grievne hve on your eision whether or not to mke/efen n llegtion of personl grievne through the Employment Reltions Authority? Do you hve ny suggestions for how the ost of either efening or rising personl grievne n e reue? Are there ny other omments you woul like to mke in regrs to osts, finnil or otherwise? 2. Vrying qulity (n effet) of employment votes Question 4: Hve you reeive representtion in personl grievne se? If so, n you esrie the type of representtion use e.g. no win, no fee employment vote, rrister or soliitor, union vote, employer representtive or other type of employment vote? If other, n you plese speify? ) Wht ws your experiene of the representtive in reltion to i) proess ii) outome n iii) ost? Question 5: If you hve ny onerns out the qulity or representtion in personl grievne ses, how woul you suggest the qulity of representtion in personl grievne ses oul e improve? 3. Blne of firness in the personl grievne system Question 6: 57

58 Do you think the personl grievne system provies fir lne etween employers n employees interests? For exmple, oes the lw firly lne the uties n rights of employers n employees? Is the lne of firness out right uner the urrent personl grievne system? If the lne is not fir, how oul it e improve to provie etter lne? Question 7: Do you onsier the personl grievne system to e too omplex n iffiult to unerstn? If so, n you esrie wht prts of the system rete omplexity? The At ontins n ojetive test for justifile ismissl. Do you think the urrent test is pproprite or oes it rete unertinty? For exmple: i. wht re your views on whether suffiient or too muh emphsis is given to proess rther thn sustne? ii. o you think minor irregulrities in proeure shoul e given less emphsis thn the tul sustne of the personl grievne lim? Wht test woul you onsier pproprite if the urrent test were to hnge? For exmple: wht woul you onsier to e fir proess for ressing n employment reltionship prolem, suh s personl grievne? 4. Ensuring ess to justie Question 8: Do you onsier there re rriers to rising or efening personl grievne? If yes, Wht re the rriers to rising personl grievne se? Are there greter rriers fe y prtiulr groups? For exmple: women, youth, migrnts, prt time or sul employees? Question 9: Wht re the rriers to efening personl grievne se? Question 10: Do you hve ny suggestions for how ny rriers to either efening or rising personl grievne se n e reue? 5. Negtive impt of the responsiveness n timeliness of servies Question 11: Hve you experiene elys in rising or efening personl grievne? If yes, where hve these elys ourre in the personl grievne system n wht effet hs this h on you? Question 12: Do you hve suggestions on wys to improve the responsiveness n timeliness of ) the Deprtment s meition servies, ) the Employment Reltions Authority or ) the Employment Court for resolving employment reltionship prolems? Question 13: Wht re your views on getting finl n ining eision from the Deprtment s meition servies uring meition? 58

59 6. Employment Reltionship prolems pper to impt isproportiontely on smll or meium size enterprises (SMEs) Question 14: SMEs n experiene greter hllenges in resolving workple prolems ue to numer of ftors, suh s lk of speilist humn resoures n/or lk of union presene. Is there more tht the Government n o to ssist SMEs in resolving employment reltionship prolems suh s personl grievnes? Wht woul help? Hs the use of tril perios y employers reue the iniene of personl grievnes they hve experiene? Plese explin. 7. Eligiility rising personl grievne Question 15: Shoul ifferent eligiility rules pply to ifferent types of employees when rising personl grievne? If yes, n you plese esrie wht these might e? For exmple: Wht re your views on limiting the ility of employees erning over speifi slry mount from rising personl grievne for unjustifie ismissl uner the At, e.g. slry ps? Question 16: Do you onsier the 90 y limittion perio for rising personl grievne with n employer is equte n/or pproprite? If not, wht woul you onsier is n equte n/or pproprite perio of time to rising personl grievne with n employer? Question 17: Do you onsier the three yer limittion perio for loging personl grievne in the Employment Reltions Authority n the Employment Court is pproprite? If not, wht woul you onsier is n pproprite perio of time for loging personl grievne in the Employment Reltions Authority n the Employment Court fter it hs een rise with the employer? 8. Effetiveness of remeies Question 18: Wht re your views on reinsttement s primry remey? Are there irumstnes in whih reinsttement is not pproprite s primry remey? If possile, n you tell us out ny experienes you hve h regring reinsttement s primry remey? Question 19: Remeies re intene to reuil proutive employment reltionships n help people lern from mistkes. Wht re your views on the effetiveness of urrent remeies ville for personl grievne ses? Do you hve ny suggestions on how to improve the urrent rnge of remeies ville for personl grievne ses? 9. Aitionl questions Question 20: Wht hnges to the urrent employment reltions legisltion woul mke the most ifferene to proutivity in your workple? Why? Question 21: If some res of the urrent personl grievne system were to hnge, wht woul e the three min res you woul like to hnge? If possile, n you provie exmples of the hnge you woul like to see? 59

60 Question 22: Do you hve ny other further omments tht you woul like to rise on issues or proposls for improvements to the urrent personl grievne system tht hve not een isusse ove? Prt D Assistne to Resolve Prolems t n Erly Stge 1. Options to improve the pity n pility of meition servies Question 23: In wht wys oul meition e me more flexile to suit the nees of the prties? Question 24: In wht wy oul meition servies e pte to meet your nees when working with speifi groups? Question 25: Woul you use meition servies in reltion to helth n sfety mtters? 2. Extening the sope of meition servies Question 26: To wht extent woul you support meition servies pplying systemi pproh to prolem resolution in your workple y ientifying trens, proviing feek n options for ressing issues? Question 27: If Deprtment of Lour were to provie new meition servies, wht oul these servies e? How helpful woul these servies e? Cn you think of other wys in whih meition servies oul provie orgnistions with help to prevent n resolve prolems in the workple? 3. Erly intervention in iniviul isputes Question 28: Wht re your views on erly intervention meition servies? Question 29: Woul you use n online employment prolem resolution tool if this were ville? Question 30: Wht other servies woul e helpful to you in voiing n/or resolving employment reltionship prolems t n erly stge? 60

61 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF SUBMITTERS Numer Nme Sumitter type 1 Iniviul Employer 2 Iniviul Employer 3 Iniviul Employer 4 Servie n Foo Workers Union Union 5 Iniviul Employer 6 Iniviul Legl servies group 7 Iniviul Legl servies group 8 Iniviul Employer 9 Iniviul Employer 10 Iniviul Employer 11 Iniviul Employer 12 Avis Rent Cr NZ Employer 13 Iniviul Employer 14 Iniviul Employee 15 Iniviul Fmily n friens 16 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 17 Iniviul Legl servies group 18 The NZ Refining Compny Lt Employer 19 Hospitlity Servies Lt, tring s Millennium Hotels n Resorts Employer 20 Iniviul Employer 21 Iniviul Employer 22 Iniviul Employer 23 Iniviul Employer 24 Iniviul Employer 25 Iniviul Legl Servies Group 26 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 27 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 28 Iniviul Employer 29 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 30 Iniviul Employer 31 Iniviul Other 32 Iniviul Employer 61

62 33 Polie Mnger s Guil Union 34 Iniviul Employer 35 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 36 Whitirei Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 37 Iniviul Employee 38 Iniviul Fmily n friens 39 Iniviul Employer 40 Iniviul Employer 41 Iniviul Employer 42 Iniviul Employment vote 43 Iniviul Legl servies group 44 Iniviul Employee 45 Iniviul Employer 46 Iniviul Employee 47 Iniviul Employer 48 Iniviul Employee 49 Servie n Foo Workers' Union Union 50 Iniviul Employer 51 Iniviul Employment vote 52 Iniviul Employer 53 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 54 Iniviul HR/Employment Reltions Avisor 55 Iniviul Employment vote 56 Iniviul Employer 57 Iniviul Employer 58 Iniviul Employer 59 Iniviul Employer 60 Iniviul Employer 61 Iniviul Employer 62 Brnros Employer 63 Iniviul Employer 64 Iniviul Employer 65 Iniviul Employer 66 Iniviul Employer 62

63 67 Iniviul Aemi 68 Iniviul Employer 69 Iniviul Employer 70 Iniviul Employer 71 Iniviul Employer 72 Iniviul Employer 73 Iniviul Employer 74 Iniviul Employer 75 Iniviul Employee 76 Ril n Mritime Trnsport Union Union 77 Iniviul Employer 78 Te Kohng Reo Ntionl Trust Employer 79 Iniviul Employer 80 Iniviul Employer 81 Smith & Cughey Lt Employer 82 SBAG Other 83 Iniviul Employer 84 New Zeln Fire Servie Employer 85 Iniviul Legl servies group 86 Iniviul Employer 87 Iniviul Employer 88 Iniviul Employer 89 Iniviul Employer 90 Ntionl Ro Crriers Employer Assoition 91 Iniviul Employer 92 Iniviul Employer 93 Employment Lw Institute Legl servies group 94 Iniviul Employer 95 EMA Northern Employer Assoition 96 Iniviul Employer 97 Iniviul Employer Avote 98 Iniviul Employer 99 Iniviul HR/employment Reltions visor 100 Iniviul Employer 63

64 101 Iniviul Employer 102 Iniviul Employer 103 Iniviul Employment vote 104 Iniviul Employer 105 Aukln University Employer 106 Mn Coh Servies Lt Employer 107 Flether Builing Employer 108 New Zeln Resient Dotors Assoition, the Assoition of Professionl n Exeutive Employees, n the New Zeln Meil Lortory Workers Union Union 109 Wirrp Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 110 Iniviul Legl servies group 111 Iniviul Aemi 112 Iniviul Employment Avote 113 Iniviul Employer 114 Iniviul Employer 115 Iniviul Employer 116 Iniviul Employer 117 Iniviul Employer 118 Iniviul Employer 119 NZ Business Roun tle Employer Assoition 120 Mnwtu Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 121 Soli Energy NZ Lt Employer 122 Iniviul Employer 123 Iniviul Other 124 Steveoring n Ports NZ In Employer Assoition 125 Night 'n Dy Foostores Limite (on ehlf of 24 ompnies) 126 NZ Post Primry Tehers' Assoition 127 Inepenent Shools Eution Assoition (ISEA) Employer Union Union 128 Iniviul Aemi 129 Iniviul Employee 130 Centre for Reserh on Work, Employer 64

65 Eutionl n Business Lt (We) 131 Iniviul Employer 132 Dunein Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 133 Iniviul Employer 134 Bell Gully Legl servies group 135 Fmily Plnning Assoition Employer 136 Strit Shipping Employer 137 IAG NZ Lt Employer 138 New Zeln Hotel Counil (NZHC) Employer Assoition 139 St John Employer 140 Clus New Zeln Employer 141 Fonterr Co-opertive Group Lt n Fonterr Brns (NZ) Lt n Fonterr Brns (Tip Top) Lt Employer 142 Mnwtu College Employer 143 Plstis NZ Employer Assoition 144 Vitori University of Wellington Employer 145 New Zeln Automoile Assoition In Employer 146 Whitirei Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 147 Puli Servie Assoition Union 148 Ntionl Assoition of Retil Groers n Supermrkets of NZ Employer Assoition 149 Iniviul Other 150 The Wrehouse Lt Employer 151 Iniviul Employer 152 Met Inustry Assoition Employer Assoition 153 Iniviul Legl servies group 154 Iniviul HR/Employment reltions visor 155 Turners n Growers Lt Employer 156 Tertiry Eution Union Union 157 Iniviul Employment vote 158 Workers' Right Servie Employment vote 159 NZ Vie-Chnellors' Committee Employer Assoition 160 MDonl's Resturnt (NZ) Lt Employer 65

66 161 Tegel Foos Lt Employer 162 New Zeln Assoites Lt Employer 163 Tlleys Group Lt Employer 164 Teleom New Zeln Lt Employer 165 The Frmers Tring Compny Lt Employer 166 New Zeln Work n Lour Mrket Institute - Aukln University Aemi 167 Russell MVegh Legl servies group 168 Iniviul Legl servies group 169 Lyttelton Port of Christhurh Employer 170 Iniviul Legl servies group 171 Business NZ Employer ssoition 172 Iniviul HR/Employment reltions visor 173 HRV Frnhise Avisory Counil Employer ssoition 174 Iniviul Legl servies group 175 New Zeln Mnufturers n Exporters Assoition 176 Otgo Southln Employers Assoition In 177 New Zeln Counil of Tre Unions Employer ssoition Employer ssoition Union 178 Minter Ellison Ru Wtts Legl servies group 179 Iniviul Employer 180 Iniviul Employee 181 Tirwhiti Community Lw Centre Legl servies group 182 Iniviul Employer 183 ANZ Ntionl Bnk Limite Employer 184 Iniviul Employer 185 Miln Region DHB Union 186 Super Chep Auto Group Lt Employer 187 Reruitment n Consulting Servies Assoition Employer 188 Iniviul Legl servies group 189 Iniviul HR/Employment reltions visor 190 University of Cnterury Employer 66

67 191 Distrit Helth Bors NZ In Employer 192 Spotless Servies (NZ) Limite Employer 193 Vofone NZ Employer 194 Simpson Grierson Legl servies group 195 Heinz Wttie's Lt Employer 196 NZ Nurses Orgnistion Union 197 NZ Post Employer 198 Iniviul Employer 199 Iniviul Employer vote 200 EMA Centrl Employer ssoition 201 Russell MVegh Legl servies group 202 New Zeln Lw Soiety (Cnterury Westln Brnh) Legl servies group 203 Sky City Entertinment Group Employer 204 Iniviul Employee 205 Hospitlity Assoition of New Zeln 206 Trnsfiel Servies (New Zeln) Limite Employer ssoition Employer 207 NZ Retilers Assoition Employer ssoition 208 Progressive Enterprises Limite Employer 209 Iniviul Legl servies group 210 Ministry of Soil Development Employer 211 Sileni Esttes Lt Employer 212 Air NZ Employer 213 Ports of Aukln Employer 214 Community Lw Cnterury Legl servies group 215 New Zeln Shool Trustees Assoition Employer ssoition 216 Alloy Yhts Interntionl Lt Employer 217 Feerte Frmers of New Zeln Employer ssoition 218 Penguin Wholeslers Whngrei Limite 219 The Aritrtors n Meitors Institute of New Zeln In Employer Other 67