Flexible working hours bill gets backing

NZPA

Last updated 00:00 30/07/2007

Relevant offers

The industrial relations select committee said the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill put forward by Green MP Sue Kedgley would "help to change workplace culture".

The bill, which is opposed by National, now proposes that employees with children under five, disabled children or a dependent relative could ask for flexible working arrangements.

This could included working different hours and/or working from home.

The request could only be rejected if one of a number of grounds were met, including:

inability to reorganise work among existing staff;

detrimental impact on quality or performance;

burden of additional costs;

detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; and

undermining the terms of a collective agreement.

If an employer said no to a request, the worker would have the right to get a labour inspector in to resolve the matter or seek mediation under employment law.

The select committee said the bill was based on law in the United Kingdom which had encouraged more flexibility in the workplace.

New Zealand had a culture of long working hours and many parents were under stress, the committee said.

While many employers did offer flexible working arrangements a law would ensure consistency across the workforce.

In a minority report National said the bill was unnecessary as employers were already offering flexible arrangements where possible.

It would also mean employees who might fit the criteria for flexible working hours under the bill might find it harder to get work.

The Council of Trade Unions welcomed the select committee report but said the bill should be extended to all employees not just those with caring duties.

Other unions such as those representing nurses and financial sector workers also said the bill would help many of their members who had to juggle work and family duties.

Employers group Business New Zealand said the bill would cause "ludicrous outcomes".

Employers wanted to make workplaces as flexible as possible, but facing an onerous legal process would make them fearful.

Ad Feedback