industrial relations

The Government is considering a revamp of personal grievance laws. The moves include a crackdown on frivolous claims and new rules to control "no win, no fee" advocates who have been seen as ramping up claims against employers.

But unions are concerned that the Government is using the review to reduce employees' rights when they are sacked, including claims based on unfair process.

Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson said she had an open mind on whether changes were needed but a discussion document and questionnaire, yet to be approved by the Cabinet, would canvass what changes were needed. In some areas the law had tilted too far against employers.

Prime Minister John Key has said the Government "shares concern from many quarters about the fairness and consistency of personal grievance claims".

Ms Wilkinson said she wanted to ensure the regime was fair to both sides. "You hear stories anecdotally from employers who say, `Oh well, it's just too hard we will just pay some money to make it go away.' And that's not justice." She had also heard that some of the "no win, no fee" industrial law advocates "know their way around the procedures so well that, whatever the merits of the case, the employer might pay out".

Some employers who had a poorly performing employee, or one who was not working out, did not know how to resolve the issue. It was difficult to judge, because many cases were settled, paid out or withdrawn before they reached the Employment Relations Authority.

Of 2500 applications lodged with the ERA each year, only about 1000 go on to the first-stage investigative meeting.

She was also concerned that some cases might be "frivolous" and were clogging up the system.

She had consulted the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand on the review. She said industrial relations law was generally working well, and did not need wholesale changes.

CTU president Helen Kelly said "no win, no fee" advocates tended to operate among non-unionised workers and moves to regulate them would not concern the CTU. But it had major concerns about other elements of the document. She said the Government saw procedural fairness and natural justice as an impediment when an employee was dismissed.

The remedies won through personal grievances were too low, she said. Surveys had found the average cost to employers was $5000, of which compensation paid to workers averaged $2800.

Thousands of employment relationships ended unfairly and employees did nothing about it, so a lot of employers got off lightly. The number of grievance cases was low, considering that about 600,000 people left their jobs each year.

Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said businesses had complained for years that the system was too bureaucratic and seemed to "emphasise form over substance". They were also concerned about "ambulance-chasing lawyers" that lodged claims with no real justification to pressure employers.

The Government is also reviewing the law covering vulnerable workers, mostly in cleaning, catering and laundry companies, whose jobs are protected if a contract changes hands.

Auckland bus passengers are assured of 2 years of industrial peace after drivers agreed yesterday to end a long and bitter pay dispute.

About 600 NZ Bus drivers and cleaners voted by an 80 per cent majority to accept a company offer amounting to a 20c hourly pay rise in three instalments. That will lift the top hourly rate for drivers with at least nine months service to $17.45 now, $18.15 next year and $18.75 in February 2012.

The deal includes a minimum of $560 in backpay dated from July 5 and a $500 contribution from the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to wages lost when NZ Bus locked out 875 workers and suspended all its services for seven days last month.

Although the pay rises are the same as offered in a package rejected by 55 per cent of drivers at a rowdy and emotional meeting three weeks ago, union negotiators welcoming a softening of "clawbacks" sought by Infratil subsidiary, which provides 70 per cent of Auckland bus services.

Auckland Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said the company dropped its demand to be able to review the jobs of drivers absent because of incapacity for more than two months, and had reverted to an existing three-month threshold. It also agreed to add just 24 hours to an existing 48-hour time limit for submitting complaints to drivers, which was half of what it sought earlier.

The deal retains a new weight limit of 115kg for driver recruits but the unions say that is outside their control as a pre-employment requirement, even though Auckland University of Technology nutrition and obesity expert Professor Elaine Rush believes it will discriminate against Polynesians, with higher average weights than other ethnic groups.

Drivers spoken to outside a Tramways Union meeting at Alexandra Park were generally pleased to have settled up before Christmas, given the added financial strain the festive season puts on families, but one said he believed they should have held out for more money. He believed the length of an agreement locking drivers into what he still considered to be low wages would make the company an attractive sale proposition.

Mr Froggatt acknowledged a general suspicion that Infratil may be grooming NZ Bus for sale, but said that gave the drivers no great concern as they had lost confidence in the company. He said that although hourly pay rates were now higher than that of other Auckland bus company, NZ Bus drivers received just time and a quarter for overtime hours and were determined to fight for time and a half after the new agreement expired.

Company operations general manager Zane Fulljames said NZ Bus was confident it had secured an agreement that would meet the needs "of our customers, our people and the business" and looked forward to rebuilding long-term relations with the four bus unions is it reshaped its operation. "This agreement allows us the stability and certainty to move forward with confidence into the Rugby World Cup 2011 and beyond," he said.

Regional transport authority chief executive Fergus Gammie also welcomed the return of stability for bus passengers.

Mike Lee sounds weary. He, along with bus drivers and 80,000 Auckland commuters, is winding down from a long, tough week.

The Auckland Regional Council chairman has already made strong comments about home-grown infrastructure company Infratil, the successful group of investors behind the standstill of much of Auckland's bus system, and he's not finished.

Infratil invests in airports and energy offshore and public transport at home, running buses in Auckland and Wellington through subsidiary company NZ Bus.

On day five of the lockout of the bus drivers, Lee threatened to sack NZ Bus for not fulfilling route contracts, only to find this was not so easy.

The process is more drawn-out than he anticipated.

Lee sounds mystified about the tactics of the "reckless", "clumsy" and "ruthless" men in striped suits who are behind Infratil, the ones really calling the shots over required profit margins and future vision.

Though the buses are back on the street, for now, he says the seven-day lockout, which disrupted life for so many school students and workers, has taken other tolls.

He estimates the region will lose nearly a million passengers from the annual scoresheet, vital statistics which are needed to justify extra investment in public transport.

There's another big impact, too. When you have a dispute such as this, people go away from public transport.

"It's enormously disruptive but they do find alternatives and if they're going back to their cars then, you know, you've got to try to get them back out of their cars.

"There will be a lasting impact."

Lee hesitates at the next question. He's somewhat at a loss, he admits tiredly. He's not quite sure how to fix this problem of ensuring buses stay operating despite employment disputes.

Though this dispute between NZ Bus and its drivers is patched for now, it is only a plaster and could erupt again.

To be honest, Lee says, he has other important things to be doing, such as getting ready for the looming Super City instead of figuring out disputes involving buses.

So when he is asked how he plans to stop such massive disruption again in the future, he is thrown for a minute. "I would much prefer we didn't have this going on but, however, you ask a valid question. What is going to be done about it? "We need to sit down with Arta (the ARC's transport co-ordinating agency) and discuss that very point and resolve on a plan of action, a contingency plan. We can't hand over a mess to the Super City," he says.

Lee says he has been quite shocked at the hardline tactics of Infratil/NZ Bus. The drivers wanted to work to rule while their pay claim was on the table but the bosses locked them out - and, in doing so, locked out Aucklanders. Infratil/NZ Bus have taken such a militant approach, he says, he thinks they have done serious damage to their reputation.

Lee describes the Infratil directors as "guys with Beatle haircuts and striped suits" and "cheery chappies". "You know, if you meet them you're thinking you're dealing with Herman's Hermits, but actually these guys are ruthless operators."

Ratepayers and taxpayers spend around $94 million in subsidies for buses every year - and $58 million of this goes to NZ Bus.

Given the large public subsidies, we asked Infratil CEO Marko Bogoievski whether his organisation cares about bus drivers and Aucklanders.

Bogoievski explains Infratil is a huge investor in both New Zealand and overseas and has been for 20 years. The company's intention is to grow businesses and for them to flourish. He doesn't see how improving and upgrading bus fleets, rebranding buses and schedules, training bus drivers and introducing technology is anything other than a positive for Aucklanders.

He says he understands the havoc the dispute has caused Aucklanders and says this was not an outcome anyone wanted to see, "so obviously you're in the middle of a dispute and it's a live conversation, we're trying to get it resolved".

What about the perception that Infratil directors are ruthless, cold and hard-nosed?

He replies: "We've been around for a long time and we've earned every bit of our positive reputation as a high-quality investor, so the proof's in that really." Infratil is trying to get the best situation in Auckland too, he says. Employees, shareholders and customers of all their services are important parts of the overall equation but they're looking long-term, not just at whether buses run next week.

They have to manage the overall cost of delivering public transport services in the long run, he says.

Every time there is a tender from a local transport authority to run a major bus or public transport service, tenders are given to the lowest-priced operator.

In the process, service levels and the amount of compensation are determined - there is no free lunch for anyone.

He says if you end up increasing cost structures in the medium term, you end up increasing public subsidies for public transport, but that is a policy issue for planning agencies like Arta. Bogoievski also says he believes the bus drivers are quite well compensated relative to their peers.

"The average wage of a driver, if they were to accept our proposal, would be higher than the average wage of a New Zealander."

One of the accusations against Infratil is that they have been lobbying the Government to repeal parts of the new Public Transport Management Act, which would require them, as a commercial operation, to open their books regarding the public subsidies.

Bogoievski says the problem with the Act is that local authorities want to control every aspect of public transport, including confiscating commercial routes that NZ Bus and other operators have been investing in for a long time.

Infratil's preferred model is to let private provision of these services reduce the need for subsidies, "so in effect, Infratil's leading the charge, through NZ Bus, to try to manage the overall cost of public transport to Auckland ratepayers".

Bogoievski says the Infratil directors are not mean people, "no, I think we're pretty average blokes who are just trying to continue investing in New Zealand and we hope we can".

The company stands by its achievements, he says.

"I know it's provocative to refer to merchant bankers sitting in Wellington, but come down and have a look, have a cup of tea with us, we don't look anything like that."

Part of the problem with buses is division over the extent to which public transport should be publicly controlled and run, or whether private operations are best.

For Infratil, obviously private operators must have a big say in how they run.

Others, such as New Zealand urban researcher Dr Jago Dodson, say local authorities have far too little control.

The Brisbane-based Griffith University research fellow warns strongly against any watering-down of the Public Transport Management Act, saying we are already seeing Infratil starting to test its strength in the current dispute with the bus drivers.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce says he is certainly taking a look at the Act because of concerns from NZ Bus and other operators about the ability of councils to contract over the top of commercial services where they are operating successfully and don't require a subsidy.

He doesn't cosy up to anyone, he adds, pointing out that though he has talked to NZ Bus, he's probably talked "way more times" to Lee, "but no one accuses me of cosying up to Mike".

For Lee, the end is not in sight. Joyce has announced a new Auckland Transport Agency which will operate under the Super City, replacing existing Auckland transport entities.

Lee says though the river of public money will flow - "$160,000 a day into Infratil once normal services are resumed" - public control and accountability over it will be weakened by the Minister's new transport authority.

"So when there's another lockout in the Super City, people will ask the Super Mayor what's going on and the Super Mayor will probably have even less power than I do now to get it sorted."

SERVICE CHARGE

The contracting of services for bus routes is a complicated business and though many routes qualify for subsidies, others don't. Ratepayers and taxpayers pay around $94 million in subsidies for buses each year.

Around 26 per cent are commercially run, so don't get a subsidy, but even these will often get a concessionary fare top-up. The bulk of the services - 74 per cent of which are contracted services - are paid for through subsidies.

Even many of the main routes, including the Link bus, and main arterial corridors such as Dominion, Eden and Sandringham Roads, have parts of the service provided through subsidies.

Arta says without the subsidy the number of weekday peak period services offered along Dominion Rd, for example, would be significantly reduced and services after 9pm may not be provided.

It has not been an easy first year for Go Wellington's controversial Snapper card system.

It was intended to be a simple way to catch the bus, but has been plagued by teething problems and technical glitches. Snapper chief executive Miki Szikszai said issues with the card had been resolved and the system was running well.

However, the card has been dogged by complaints since its inception last July. There were problems when the card was introduced because many customers did not realise its $10 price tag did not actually enable them to travel on the bus.

Last September Consumer New Zealand complained that customers were being overcharged, or charged for routes they had not taken, and were being denied bus access when cards failed. In April, more than 100 people were overcharged for journeys owing to a computer glitch, one passenger being charged $97 for a $2.25 trip.

Last month the discount for Snapper users was decreased from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, rousing complaints of a "stealth" fare increase from some bus users.

Wellington solicitor and regular Snapper user Dana Maniapoto said she was concerned by the lack of information available to bus users. "I'm not clear whether it's charging correctly," she said. "With Snapper I am never sure." Maniapoto said while she accepted the decrease in discount, if the discount went down again she would not continue using Snapper cards.

Victoria University student Stephen Hedges said it was "silly" that the system showed him his Snapper balance only when it was down to $10. He was never sure how much money he had left on his card. "If I was overcharged I didn't really notice because they don't tell you," he said.

The cards can be used at various retail outlets and cafes as an alternative to eftpos or cash. However, lack of security has caused concern. The cards don't have a Pin, a name or unique information other than the serial number.

Regular Snapper user Terina Thompson said the lack of security was her major issue with Snapper. ''If it did get misplaced or taken I'm unable to get it cancelled, especially if I'm putting on $60 or more,'' she said.

Snapper's Szikszai said there had been a programme of development since Snapper's introduction, and the glitches in the system had been worked out.

He said complaints from customers that it was hard to work out the balance on their cards were ''confusing''. Szikszai said the cards had no Pin because they were intended for fast, easy transactions. He advised that they should be used only for purchases of less than $35. He said the cards could also be easily registered, which would allow for cancellation and replacement if lost or stolen.

Contrary to information currently on Snapper's website which forecasts a price increase to $15 Szikszai said the $10 price to buy a Snapper card would not be increasing ''at any point in the future''.

He said the Snapper system also enabled a complete reconciliation of earnings for the company. This resulted in nine bus drivers being sacked recently after accusations they had been stealing bus fares.

Soon transfer tickets, child fares and other types of ticket, such as daytripper passes, would be payable by Snapper.

NZ Bus general operations manager Zane Fulljames would not comment, but a company spokesperson said that even with the decrease in the Snapper discount, it was still the same cost as the previous 10-trip ticket

Businesses are shooting themselves in the foot by choosing recruitment agencies that treat job seekers poorly - a new survey shows widespread anger among candidates.

The OCG Consulting survey of 11,000 candidates over the last six months examined the treatment the job seekers received from recruitment agencies compared to when they dealt with employers directly.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction in four categories on a five-point scale from ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’. Recruitment agencies were rated poor more often than employers in every category.

In ‘overall standard of care’ a whopping 23% of recruitment agencies were rated poor, compared to 16% of employers. The ‘communication skills’ (19%/14%), ‘follow-up’ (23%/20%) and ‘level of understanding’ (17%/11%) categories continued this trend. At the other end of the scale, only 5% of employers and recruiters were rated as excellent for overall standard of care.

OCG general manager Carol Dallimore describes the results of the survey as “horrific” for recruiters. “The anecdotal feedback we’ve received from candidates recently is that their treatment has been pretty abysmal, both at the hands of employers and recruitment agencies – but as the survey shows, recruitment agencies have been worse.”

She warns that if shabby treatment puts a candidate off dealing with a recruitment agency, this harms not only the agency but also the businesses that deal with that agency that could potentially miss out on talent. Although the flood of candidates has overwhelmed the systems of some agencies, she blames the lack of follow-up from many of them on what she calls a “lack of common courtesy”.

She still recommends employers use a recruiter in most cases, particularly now due to the current glut of CVs, but she advises them to look for agencies that are good at candidate selection, which has suddenly leap-frogged candidate sourcing in importance.

There is an “upsurge of frustrated candidates”, as evidenced by some angry responses to the survey. One respondent opined, “I get the impression that many (recruitment consultants) have no ability to assess the quality of my background and experience nor do they recognise from my CV how I have been able to change and adapt to roles. “In short, I wonder if the monkeys at Auckland Zoo are given piles of CVs to stick pins in.”

More changes to industrial relations and the Employment Relations Act appear to be on the Government's agenda.

Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson says the Government has to be open to suggestions when it comes to potential law changes.

She believes legislative framework is needed with enough flexibility to allow businesses to survive the current economic conditions but which still treats employees fairly. Ms Wilkinson says there are plans to make changes concerning union access to workplaces and to restore workers' rights to enter collective agreements without having to belong to a union.

She also wants to look at the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court to streamline processes.

A man with 43 years service is one of 60 employees to be axed from LWR International's Christchurch factory. Roy Williams, 58, said the mood was grim, not just for himself as "the longest server", but for his workmates with young families and mortgages.

Some were eyeing Australia for jobs, he said. He remembers the "glory days" when the Rudkin family owners of clothing-based LWR would reward employees on a Saturday with fish and chips and drinks, and when "it was a joy to come to work".

Things had tightened considerably under successive owners of the Sydenham factory, including Brierley Investments, American David Teece and now Ken Anderson.

But yesterday things got considerably tighter for Williams, who was told he will finish in the textile operations two days before Christmas. His wife died a couple of years ago, leaving him to care for a daughter, now 10. "We all got our letters just five minutes ago with a termination date on it," he said at the site. "It's just sad. It's the young ones I feel sorry for." He had already explored other work options, but said younger skilled workers were considering moving to Australia. Fourteen staff finished yesterday.

LWR chief executive Malcolm Walkinshaw said the business case for merino, polyester and other textile-making to be based in Otara, Auckland, rather than Sydenham was compelling. "We simply couldn't afford to operate duplicate textile plants in both locations. In the end, we chose Auckland because of that site's greater throughput and its space for future expansion," he said.

While the move was not prompted by the financial climate, the recent world downturn had left business leaders around New Zealand worried about the economic outlook, Walkinshaw said.

Unions fear the LWR cuts could be the beginning of a series of redundancies at small to large firms around New Zealand, with Christchurch having already seen jobs lost at G.L. Bowron, Skellerup, Dynamic Controls, Click Clack, Tip Top and Feltex.

Walkinshaw said Christchurch would retain a major manufacturing presence.

LWR have about 240 employees in Christchurch after the 60 lay-offs that will be staggered through to the first quarter of next year.

National Distribution Union organiser Kaelene Churton said there were a few others with nearly the same length of LWR service as Williams, and many other reliable workers of 20 or 30 years. "The impact that it has on people's lives for them it's going to be life-changing."

New Zealand businesses often have a tough time competing against larger Australian rivals.

Our corporate history is littered with failed New Zealand attempts to break into the Australian market, while large Australian companies have done well here, often buying and running dominant companies in New Zealand and increasing their profits.

The Warehouse, Telecom and Air New Zealand are the most recent examples of our corporate failures across the Tasman. Only Michael Hill comes to mind as a success.

Australian-owned media companies Fairfax (the owner of Stuff, TradeMe and the former INL chain of newspapers), APN (New Zealand Herald) and the banks (ASB, ANZ, BNZ, Westpac and National) have all done extraordinarily well since buying into New Zealand, particularly over the last five years as they profited from dominant positions in a relatively fast-growing economy.

So most assumed that when Woolworths bought the Progressive supermarket operation in 2005 it would monster the apparently outdated cooperative structure of New Zealand’s Foodstuffs operation.

There was plenty of swagger in Woolworths’ early approach in New Zealand. It flexed its muscles as a massive purchaser to drive down prices and margins for suppliers in new “Trans-Tasman” bulk purchasing arrangements. This made a lot of local suppliers very grumpy and lost it an enormous amount of goodwill with the supplier community. New Zealand is still a small place and many have not forgotten these tough negotiating tactics.

Then in August and September of 2006 Woolworths locked out workers at its Palmerston North distribution centre for almost a month to show them who was boss after they went on strike for fairer and higher pay. After a couple of weeks, gaps began to appear on shelves. Customers joined the queue of grumpy parties, alongside workers and suppliers. Eventually Woolworths settled, but the damage to its reputation was significant with customers used to well-stocked shelves.

This early robust approach may well have worked in Australia, but it just got a lot of people’s backs up here. There is definitely a difference in business cultures between New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand managers tend to be more consensual and less confrontational than those in Australia. They don’t like criticising rivals and tend to be much more careful before deciding to “burn” a supplier or rival or union.

Australian business leaders tend to be more brash, more willing to criticise rivals and debate issues publicly. Their approach is much more about a good stoush and a beer afterwards. Here we’re a little more reticent. There’s something about our national character which is more conservative and unwilling to confront rivals. We try to avoid open confrontation if we can. That means we can sometimes get monstered in negotiations.

This, of course, is a crass generalisation, but many New Zealanders would recognise it. I worked in Australia as a business journalist for five years and found it a much easier place to report business issues because leaders there are more direct and uncompromising, although ultimately had a more outward-looking and more optimistic view of the future. I admire it, but I know it’s different.

Toll Holdings is still patting itself on the back for the amazingly high price it managed to extract from a vote-hungry Labour-led government after years of arm twisting. People I talk to in Australia still can’t believe our government rolled over for this price. They just chuckle and count the money.

So the failure of Woolworths to win the battle with Foodstuffs is unusual. We like to beat the Australians in any battle and this win is particularly sweet.

Woolworths expected to “turn around” the business it bought for NZ$2.5 billion within three years by bringing in the Woolworths Australia model of using massive purchasing power and highly centralised distribution systems to pass on lower costs to customers while increasing margins.

Yet the three years is nearly up and the business, which includes the Foodtown, Countdown and Woolworths chains, is seeing its sales growth and profit margins dropping.

Figures from JP Morgan analyst Shaun Cousins show that Woolworths’ market share has dropped to 43% from 45% in New Zealand, while Foodstuffs’ share has risen to 57% in the last couple of years.

Woolworths’ results for the financial year released on Tuesday lay bare the scale of the failure in New Zealand.

Woolworths’ profit margin (earnings before interest and tax to sales) in New Zealand actually fell 4 basis points to 4.19% and its overall profit growth was up only 6.4%. This compared with 18.8% profit growth and a 5.52% profit margin in the Australian supermarkets.

So Woolworths is a full 133 basis points less profitable in New Zealand than in Australia. That may not sound a lot but for a tight-margin, high-volume business like groceries this is a big deal. Comparable sales growth (after taking into account the different number of weeks in the financial years) fell to 3.5% in the fourth quarter of the 2008 financial year from 9.9% in the first quarter.

This is shockingly weak when overall supermarket and grocery sales reported by Statistics New Zealand rose 5.3% in the June quarter from the same quarter a year ago. Woolworths itself said food price inflation ran at 4.6% for the year so a 3.5% rise actually implies a fall in volumes.

Foodstuffs, which owns the Pak’nSave, New World and Four Square chains, is winning the battle.

So what went wrong for Woolworths and right for Foodstuffs?

Woolworths’ robust approach to heavying suppliers and workers was not popular, but the problems run deeper. Woolworths believed it could make significant gains by imposing a centralised distribution system on Progressive and introduced big “Homebrand” ranges that are made under contract for Woolworths. It is also rolling out its own Select, Naytura, Organics and Freefrom brands for various specialist foods.

This sounds like a good idea, but other suppliers get nervous when the supermarket chain starts stocking and promoting its own brands in precious shelf space at the expense of real brands. Suppliers also seem to prefer Foodstuffs’ decentralised approach in New Zealand where the supermarket is itself the warehouse (stack ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap).

It’s easier to take the supplies direct from the factory to the supermarket than to some intermediate depot. Suppliers also like dealing direct with supermarket managers rather than with warehouse managers. It means they’re one step closer to the customer.

The latest clash between New Zealand suppliers and Woolworths was revealed last month by The Independent. Woolworths wanted to penalise suppliers who were selling goods on discount through Foodstuffs at the same time as through Woolworths. It’s no surprise suppliers don’t love Woolworths.

There’s also something more fundamental going on. Foodstuffs is essentially a collection of owner-operated supermarkets who share purchasing and marketing costs, but are often fiercely independent and “local” in their approach.

That means the individual supermarket owners are intensely motivated to run good supermarkets because they keep the profits and tend to guess right what the population around their supermarkets wants to buy.

The corporatised Woolworths model has lots of employees but not many owners.

The final (and probably key) factor is Foodstuffs’ dominance in the discount grocery area. Pak’nSave has become The Warehouse and TradeMe of the grocery world all wrapped into one. It is cheap and cheerful with great ranges.

That’s what New Zealanders want right now. We are feeling the pain from higher food and fuel prices and want to find a bargain whenever we can. Pak’n'Save is simply bigger and better at it than Woolworth’s Countdown brand, as can be seen in this report from The Press.

Woolworths is trying to turn this around by converting some of its Foodtown stores to Countdown stores (Greenlane in Auckland is one that comes to mind) and rejigging its ranges to take them down market.

I think of my own family’s buying habits in recent months. We have a great collection of Pak’nSaves around us in Auckland and quite a few Foodtowns. When we need something unusual such as gluten- and dairy-free stuff we go to Foodtown, but it’s less often than it used to be. The strike/lockout in 2006 and the shortages it caused were the trigger point for us to start looking elsewhere. A visit to a supermarket is useless if you can’t get everything in one visit.

We’re now doing our big shops now at Pak’n'Save. We reckon we can save up to $100 a week.

Kiwis love a bargain and right now we seem to love the Kiwi grocery chain a bit more than the Aussie one.

The Government and trade unions say National's employment relations policy will cut wages, despite the party saying it will retain core provisions of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) if it wins the election.

National's leader, John Key, gave an assurance today the basic principles of the ERA would remain in place. "We are staying with the Employment Relations Act. We are not going back to the Employment Contracts Act," he said. "Good faith provisions will still apply, as will rights to sick leave, holidays, and health and safety provisions."

Mr Key said National would keep four weeks annual leave but allow employees to trade the fourth week for cash.

Labour Minister Trevor Mallard described the policy as "a return to the bad old days" with no protection for new employees, an erosion of the Holidays Act and a power shift in favour of employers. National's policy contains the previously-announced provision for a 90-day probation period for new employees and says there will be a review of the Holidays Act. Mr Mallard described the probation period as a "fire at will" provision which would mean lower pay and would force new employees into a trial period without any protection against unfair or unreasonable treatment. And he said a review of the Holidays Act was National Party code for cutting the pay of sick people.

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) said the policy would drive down the wages of all workers. "Every point in this policy is an attack on current worker rights and every point would put downward pressure on wages," said EPMU national secretary Andrew Little.

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said there was no mention in the policy of how it would lift wages and predicted holiday pay would be cut.

The National Distribution Union's secretary, Laila Harre, said the policy was a wolf in sheep's clothing. "It is a gift to employers, wrapped in the language of `reasonableness'," she said. "This policy will keep wages down. . .the attempt to shift the balance of power in a workplace even more towards employers is dressed up in weasel words."

Business New Zealand said the policy had the capacity to deliver economic growth if it was partnered by other pro-growth policies. "A period of restraint and consolidation along with enhancement of basic rights is likely to be beneficial," Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said. "The vast majority of employers will welcome the commitment to review the Holidays Act which has been widely criticised for its complexity and costliness to apply." National's industrial relations spokeswoman, Kate Wilkinson, said the policy was balanced and the response was hysterical. "There is no threat to worker rights, collective bargaining will continue, there is no attack on entitlements, there is no plan to cut holidays and there is no plan to privatise ACC," she said. "It's the same tired old hysterical rubbish we've heard from Labour all week."

The main points of National’s policy are:
- Introduce a 90-day trial period for new staff, by agreement between the employer and employee, in businesses with fewer than 20 people;
- Continue to allow union access to workplaces with an employer's consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld;
- Continue to support the social partnership with Business NZ and the Council of Trade Unions to work together on issues of mutual interest;
- Restore workers' rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union;
- Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it is properly resourced with properly qualified mediators;
- Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross-examine before an impartial referee;
- Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal;
- Keep four weeks annual leave but allow employees to request trade of the fourth week for cash. This can be only at the employee's request and cannot be raised in negotiations for an agreement; and
- Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of 'relevant daily pay'.