This member's bill would amend the Employment Relations Act so that workers in triangular employment relationships (employed by one company but working under the control or direction of another) can be covered by a collective agreement applying to the work performed for the controlling business. It was defeated at first reading.
These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.
A member's bill amending the Employment Relations Act 2000 to help workers in "triangular" employment arrangements. A triangular relationship involves three parties: a worker employed by a labour-hire or contracting company who actually works day-to-day under the direction of another business — the "controlling" employer, such as a port or factory. The bill would let such workers, where they do the same work as the controlling employer's own staff, seek the pay and conditions in that employer's collective agreement, so labour-hire employees are not paid less for identical work. It mainly affects labour-hire and contracted workers, unions, and the host businesses that use them.
Origin: a private member's bill carried by Labour MP Helen White (inherited from colleagues), building on earlier triangular-employment law. Argument for: it promotes equal pay for equal work and reduces exploitation of migrant, Māori and Pasifika workers who are over-represented in labour hire. Argument against: it adds complexity to three-party arrangements, could reduce the flexibility seasonal and event work relies on, burden small firms, and is seen by opponents as expanding union coverage.
See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.