Kate Wilkinson

By Maggie Tait of NZPA

Wellington, March 2 NZPA - Legislation bringing in changes to personal grievance cases could be before Parliament by the middle of the year, Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson says.

The Government will consider ideas in a Labour Department discussion paper out today including:

* extending out the 90-day probation period for workers at small companies -- options included extending the period but also making it apply to companies with up to 50 workers instead of 20 workers;

* changing the rules around when it is fair to sack workers;

* setting a period of time a worker had to be at a company before they could make a complaints, and

* measures, including regulation, to ensure better standards of employment advocates.

Submissions close at the end of this month and Mrs Wilkinson told NZPA she intended introducing legislation to make changes around May-June.

Employees can take personal grievance cases to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) when they think they have been treated unfairly but the Government has concerns about how the system has been working.

A year ago yesterday the Government's law bringing in the 90-day probation period for companies with fewer than 20 workers came into effect.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard today was concerned workers would further lose their access to justice. He said there was no research into how many people had been fired under the 90-day probation period already.

"From my perspective there's not a good evidence base to justify extending it," he told NZPA.

Should the probationary period be extended Mr Mallard said that would have a "deadening effect" on the labour market.

"If they think they can lose their job without reason then why would they shift?"

Prime Minister John Key told reporters that most New Zealand companies were small to medium sized.

"If someone really has done something that they should be dismissed for but the employer hasn't followed absolutely the letter of the law as it is currently prescribed, I think it's unfair when you're getting employers paying out in that situation.

"In a way, it's a sort of form of blackmail."

Mrs Wilkinson said officials had been looking at how the probation period policy was working.

"From what I hear it's working well but if there are any crinkles in it we need to know what they are before we make any further decisions about it. So that work should be on my desk shortly and I will certainly have a look at it and put it in the mix."

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little was concerned workers might lose their jobs and have no access to justice. He was worried the Government would pander to bad employers.

Mrs Wilkinson said that was a typical union response and she had no plan to make wholesale changes to employment law. "... what we do has to be fair to both employers and employees and we want to get that balance right."

The paper raised the idea of changing the current rule around the test of justification, which is set out in employment law.

Under a 2004 change to the Employment Relations Act a decision whether a sacking was justified had to be determined on an objective basis by considering whether the employer had been fair and reasonable. The discussion paper seeks comment on what would be a better test and says the bias is currently in favour of workers.

Mr Mallard said he wanted to know if the change would be technical or have a real effect.

"I think most Kiwis think that workers should have a fair go and I think most people think the balance is about fair at the moment and to make it easier to fire people and not give them a fair go is something I certainly would object to."

The paper considered options to regulate costs and remedies available in the authority, remove reinstatement as the primary remedy, provide non-monetary remedies -- for example offering training -- and increase financial penalties.