John Key

Wellington, July 19 NZPA - Prime Minister John Key is defending the Government's employment law changes against a union backlash, saying other countries have probation periods for new workers that are much longer than 90 days.

The 90-day probation period, when workers can be sacked without claiming unfair dismissal, is being extended to cover all businesses.

At present it covers those with 19 or fewer employees.

Other moves include changes to the way the Employment Relations Authority operates, with simplified processes, employer agreement for union visits to workplaces, allowing workers to trade in one of four annual leave weeks for cash, and allowing employers to ask for certificates to prove employees are sick even if they are off for one day.

Unions and the Labour Party says the changes are attacks on worker rights that tilt the balance in favour of employers.

"Many developed countries we compare ourselves with have policies that go further," Mr Key said today at his post-cabinet press conference.

"In the UK no employee, whether or not they have agreed to a probationary period, can normally make a complaint of unfair dismissal until they have completed 12 months continuous employment.

"And in Australia employees must have served a minimum employment period of 12 months if they are employed in a business with fewer than 15 workers, or six months in any other business, before they can make an unfair dismissal claim."

Mr Key said the changes were "very fair and balanced" and would go through Parliament, when there would be select committee hearings for public submissions.

"I don't think the average New Zealand workplace represents some sort of war zone," he said.

"I can't rule out there being the odd employer who will abuse the system, just like there will be the odd union representative who will abuse the system."

Mr Key said unions were ideologically opposed to the changes, and they had a right to defend their position.

"But this has been in place for a year (the 90-day probation period) and it has not been a matter of great contention," he said.

Mr Key said the unions were hyping up the ability of employers to sack workers, and they had got it wrong.

Employers could not just fire someone at will, and had to give the sacked worker a reason.

"You can say it didn't work out, but you have to say why it didn't work out," he said.

And if a worker was sacked for rejecting unwanted sexual advances, that worker could take a case to the Employment Relations Authority and would win, he said.