Suchergebnisse

Since 1988 industrial relations in New Zealand's public sector have changed significantly. This paper discusses the changing roles of the State Services Commission and chief executives in bargaining with public sector employees, and how these changing roles have affected union representation and wage rates. While theEmployment Contracts Act, 1991resulted in changes to bargaining, generally its effect was minimal in the public sector with respect to bargaining outcomes. However, one of the more significant changes as a result of theEmployment Contracts Acthas been a move to direct employer — employee negotiations. Bargaining in New Zealand's public sector has moved, in the last nine years, from uniformity to diversity, but to what extent?

The labour markets of Australia and New Zealand have been regulated in similar ways, through industrial conciliation and arbitration, since the early 1900s. Globalization and market deregulation generally have led to intense pressure for greater labour market flexibility in both countries. In New Zealand, flexibility was achieved by a radical dismantling of the industrial relations system. What had been essentially a multi‐employer bargaining system was replaced with a system that supported individual employment contracting. In Australia, conciliation and arbitration remained protected by the constitution; however, industrial relations reforms aimed at severely weakening the system were implemented in the 1990s. This paper compares various labour market outcomes across both countries. The trends in both countries are similar despite maintaining different systems. Collective bargaining coverage has dropped. Collective bargaining outcomes have seen reductions in benefits, and significant changes in working time arrangements. Union density has dropped, as also has public sector employment.

During the last decade, equal employment opportunities (EEO) has moved frrmly onto theagenda in the New Zealand public sector, as in other countries. Legislation governing theoperation of central, regional and local government and the state's trading enterprisescontain a "good employer" obligation which requires chief executives to implement EEOprogrammes. The allocation of resources to EEO, the appointment of EEO co-ordinators,the development of EEO programmes and the explicit consideration of the EEOimplications of wider policies and decisions have all become regular elements of themanagement of public sector organisations. Long-serving employees could not but identifythe development of EEO as one of the major changes of the last decade.