Collective bargaining interventions: contemporary New Zealand experiments

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian McAndrew
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining

Developments in Worker Participation in New Zealand

1979 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
David F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Marked Effect ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Industrial Democracy ◽  
International Debate ◽  
Worker Participation ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Government

Industrial democracy and worker participation have become important topics for international debate, with developments taking place in many countries. Despite its former reputation for advances in the social field, little has been heard about developments in worker participation in New Zealand. The aim of the present paper is to report and assess such developments whilst placing these within the context of developments in industrial relations in that country. The strong reliance upon legal arrangements and government intervention in industrial relations matters have had a marked effect upon the development of the industrial relations system in New Zealand. Yet, despite this tradition of legalism, successive governments remain singularly reluctant to legislate in the field of worker participation. Recent initiatives by employers have been strongly unitary in nature, whilst the trade unions appear to be concentrating their efforts upon extending the scope of collective bargaining, an opportunity afforded to them due to recent changes in the law. The present Government's wish that voluntary arrangements between employers and trade unions will eventuate to cover worker participation seems less than pragmatic, since employers, unions and the Government itself differ so fundamentally upon what constitutes worker participation, and the forms it might take.

scholarly journals Industrial Relations in the Republic of Ireland

1970 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brosnan
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Republic Of Ireland ◽  
The Republic ◽  
National Economies ◽  
British Colonies

The Republic of Ireland and New Zealand are alike in many respects. They have similar-sized populations and similar climates; agriculture has an unusual prominence in their national economies and industrial development is strongly encouraged. In addition, both were once British colonies and have similar legal and political systems with English as their majority language. Despite these, and many other similarities, the two countries have markedly different industrial relations systems. In contrast to New Zealand's state-regulated system, the Irish system is notably voluntaristic, multi-unionism is the norm and Irish unions compete for membership with British-based unions. There are many other differences and this paper highlights the main aspects of the Irish system, covering the collective bargaining system, the union and employer organisations, legislation, Ireland's experience with national pay agreements, participation in management, picketing policy, union restructuring and public sector industrial relations.

scholarly journals The Impacts of Good Faith on Collective Bargaining: a New Zealand Case Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Julie May Polakoski
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Employment Relations

<p>This paper explores the protective strength of the good faith reforms as enacted under the Employment Relations Act 2000 and subsequent legislation on the collective bargaining rights of workers. Interviews were conducted with numerous unions and employers in New Zealand to discover how the good faith reforms have impacted their dealings with one another with regards to collective bargaining.</p>

scholarly journals AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOOD FAITH BARGAINING PRACTICE IN THE TRADE UNION RECOGNITION PROCESS: REFORM OF THE MALAYSIAN TRADE UNION LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 501-524
Author(s):  
Siti Suraya Abd Razak ◽  
Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Mahmod
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Recognition Process ◽  
Primary Focus

The trade union recognition process is a pre-requisite to the collective bargaining action of a trade union. The recognition is important to ascertain the competency of a trade union and the acceptance by the workers to represent them in the collective bargaining action with the employer. However, the ambiguities in the existing legislations on the trade union recognition process in Malaysia and the anti-union practices of the employer are currently depriving the workers of their rights to negotiate for better working conditions. The primary focus of the present work is to identify the weaknesses of the recognition legal framework and the anti-union practices of employers in the recognition process of trade unions. Secondly, is to critically analyse the good faith bargaining practice in other countries and its significance to the recognition process in Malaysia. To explore the anti-union tactics perpetrated by employers, semi-structured interviews have been conducted to analyse the trade unions’ experience in their recognition claims. This research employed a qualitative approach as the instrument to study the good faith bargaining practices in the Australian and New Zealand labour law framework. The findings reveal that the good faith bargaining practices in Australia and New Zealand have improved the odds for trade unions to represent the workers in negotiating collective agreements. The study finally concludes that in order to reform the recognition process of trade unions in Malaysia, the good faith bargaining practice should be implemented in the nation’s industrial relations law framework.

scholarly journals Health Sector Collective Bargaining and the Employment Contracts Act: A Case Study of Nurses

1970 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Oxenbridge
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Health Board ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Employee Union ◽  
High Level ◽  
Area Health ◽  
Conditions Of Employment

This case study describes and analyses the negotiation of a collective employment contract between an area health board management and regional representatives of the New Zealand Nurses Association during the first set of negotiations conducted under the Employment Contracts Act 1991. The study found that, contrary to claims by the Act's proponents, the Act does not lead to improved co-operation and communication between employers and employees. However, a high level of communication and co-operation was evident in the employee-union relationship, and it was found that certain provisions of the Employment Contracts Act afford employees greater power to determine their conditions of employment.

scholarly journals The Politics and Law of Trade Union Recognition: Democracy, Human Rights and Pragmatism in the New Zealand and British Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Bogg ◽  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Union Representation ◽  
Politics And Law

In this article, we seek to examine the potential for cross-fertilisation of legal regimes relating to trade union representation of members in collective bargaining. The United Kingdom has moved from an entirely voluntarist model in the 1980s to a statutory regime which facilitates recognition of a trade union following majority support from workers (usually by a ballot). By way of contrast, New Zealand has shifted from a highly regulated award-based model in the 1980s to an "agency" model whereby an employer is required to bargain in good faith with any union representing two or more of the employer's employees, but with some balloting also contemplated for coverage of non-unionised workers. It is uncontroversial that the United Kingdom legislation has been severely limited in its effects in a context of ongoing decline in collective bargaining, while the New Zealand model offers only faint remediation of the dismembering of the collective bargaining system by the Employment Contracts Act 1991. In both legal systems, a Labour Party is now proposing implementation of forms of sectoral bargaining. We explore the reasons for these political and legal developments, exploring democratic and human rights rationales for their adoption, as well as more pragmatic approaches. In so doing we examine the scope for democratic trade union representation via consent or ballot, the role of individual human rights and regulatory rationales. We conclude by considering how representative and regulatory approaches may be mutually reinforcing and address different understandings of "constitutionalisation". In so doing, we reaffirm the emphasis placed in Gordon Anderson's writings on substance over form.

scholarly journals Award, Agreement or Nothing? A Review of the Impact of S132(a) of the Labour Relations Act 1987 on Collective Bargaining

1970 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Harbridge ◽  
Stuart McCaw
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Court System ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The on-going saga of the G.N. Hale redundancy dispute appears now to have run its course. From grievance committee, to the Labour Court, to the Court of Appeal, and back to the Labour Court, the case has attracted considerable attention - from the media and naturally from industrial relations practitioners, eager to learn the view of the New Zealand court system on the vexed matter of redundancy compensation. In the most recent Labour Coun decision on Hale (WLC89/90), Goddard C J held that while the employer was able to prove that the worker was genuinely made redundant the dismissal was unjustifiable because "the circumstances called for the payment of compensation; none was paid; and the amount that was offered and refused was fixed by unilateral decision of the employer and was inadequate". The effect of this decision is profound. Employers planning to make employees redundant have a new set of requirements to meet before their actions can be taken as justifiable. While it will remain the case that there is no right to compensation for a dismissal on the grounds of redundancy unless that right is conferred by a redundancy agreement or by an award or collective agreement, there may still be a right to compensation if the dismissal, although genuinely on the grounds of redundancy, is unjustifiable and thereby gives rise to a successful personal grievance. An employer will now need to focus on the circumstances of the redundancy to detetuaine whether it calls for compensation and where it does, the employer will need to offer, and have accepted, compensation that is both adequate and negotiated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document