Formal Opposition to
Employment Relations Amendment Bill
(Government Bill 175–1, Brooke van Velden)
From: Ukes Baha | 11 August 2025
Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I oppose the Employment Relations Amendment Bill in its current form.
While framed as “reducing compliance” and “supporting business growth,” the bill dismantles core employment protections, enables misclassification of workers, and strips away the right to seek remedy for unfair treatment or dismissal. It shifts the legal balance heavily toward employer discretion, undermines job security, and encourages contractual arrangements that bypass employee rights entirely. This contradicts the Employment Relations Act 2000’s principles of fairness, good faith, and equal access to justice.
1. Removal of Personal Grievance Rights for High-Income Employees
Reference: New sections 113A–113B; 67I(2); Schedule Part 8 Clauses 26–27.
Employees earning $180,000+ annually would be barred from bringing a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal (except in narrow discrimination cases). This creates a two-tier justice system: higher-paid workers lose access to legal recourse purely based on income, not conduct.
Problem:
- Employment protections are statutory rights, not income-dependent privileges.
- Removes the good faith obligation (s.4(1A)(c)), allowing arbitrary or retaliatory terminations.
- Employers could inflate base salary to exceed the threshold while reducing other benefits to avoid obligations.
2. Expansion of ‘Specified Contractor’ Status – Pathway to Worker Misclassification
Reference: Section 6(7) amendments.
The bill introduces a “specified contractor” category excluded from the definition of employee if certain contractual terms are met.
Problem:
- Enables employers to convert employee roles into contractor arrangements while retaining similar work control.
- Strips affected workers of minimum wage, leave, and dismissal protections under a façade of “independence.”
- Past case law (Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34) confirms that the reality of the relationship — not contractual labels — determines status; this bill undermines that test.
3. Curtailment of Remedies Where Employee “Contributed” to the Situation
Reference: New sections 123B–123C; 124(2).
Remedies would be removed or limited if the employee’s actions “contributed” to the grievance, with serious misconduct removing all remedies regardless of employer conduct.
Problem:
- “Contributed” is undefined, allowing broad and subjective employer claims.
- Contradicts the principle that remedies address employer breaches even where there is shared fault (Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW [1994] 2 ERNZ 168).
- Reduces employer incentive to handle issues fairly if liability can be avoided entirely.
4. Weakening of Procedural Fairness Standards
Reference: Section 103A(5) amendment.
The Authority/court could not find a dismissal unjustifiable solely for procedural defects unless they caused “unfair” treatment — a narrow and subjective test.
Problem:
- Undermines the principle that process matters (Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] NZCA 429).
- Reduces incentives for employers to follow natural justice and proper process.
5. Removal of 30-Day Union Coverage Rule – Erosion of Collective Bargaining Entry
Reference: Section 62 amendments.
Removes the requirement for new employees to initially be employed under terms consistent with the collective agreement.
Problem:
- Weakens union entry for new hires.
- Allows early individual agreements that may undercut established standards before employees know their rights.
6. Broader Policy Risk – Shift Toward “Fire-at-Will” Culture
Combined impacts of:
- income-based grievance exclusion,
- expanded trial periods,
- reduced procedural obligations, and
- broader contractor definitions
…create a framework where job security is weakened across all income brackets over time.
Problem:
- International precedent shows “at-will” systems increase insecurity without clear productivity benefits (OECD Employment Outlook 2023).
- Undermines s.3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which seeks productive relationships through good faith and mutual obligations.
7. No Te Tiriti o Waitangi Safeguards
No acknowledgement of Te Tiriti obligations, Māori employment disparities, or protection against disproportionate impacts on tangata whenua in precarious or contractor-heavy sectors.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The bill represents a structural rollback of employment rights under the guise of “competitiveness.”
I recommend the Committee:
- Remove sections 113A–113B and related provisions to preserve universal grievance rights.
- Retain the 30-day collective coverage rule.
- Tighten ‘specified contractor’ definitions with real-world control tests.
- Maintain full remedies even where employee contribution exists.
- Preserve procedural compliance as a key test of justifiable dismissal.
- Embed Te Tiriti protections and assess impacts on Māori workers.
Employment law exists to prevent arbitrary power, not enable it.
Business confidence must not come at the expense of justice, security, and good faith in the workplace.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com