The proposed Employment Leave Bill is a “mixed bag” of proposals.

The Government has announced its intention to introduce a new Employment Leave Bill following a review of the current Holidays Act. The original review began because sick leave payments did not align with ordinary pay or annual leave, creating a discrepancy that needed to be resolved. While the review started under the previous Government, it has continued under the current one and expanded in scope.

The new Bill proposes fundamental changes to the law, including how leave is calculated and provided.

Some of the proposals are positive — for example, allowing employees to accrue and take leave from their first day of employment rather than waiting six months to become eligible.

However, other proposals are concerning, as they would disadvantage certain groups such as part-time and casual employees, or employees who receive bonuses. There are also proposed changes to alternative holidays for people who work on statutory holidays.

There is a lot to work through, which NUPE will be doing in the coming days. The Bill will still need to go through the full parliamentary process, including public submissions to the relevant select committee before it can become law. It is therefore unlikely to be enacted until next year.

Union position on replacing provisions with references to legislation

The replacement of the Holidays Act with the Employment Leave Bill — along with proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act — reinforces why unions must oppose simply replacing explicit provisions with references to the Act. Leaving matters “as defined by the Act” may seem tidy, but it shifts power away from the collective agreement and the members it protects.

Specifically, we see four main risks with this approach:

1. Certainty for members – Members need to see their rights clearly stated in the agreement itself, without having to check external legislation.

2. Stability – Legislation can and does change. If the collective agreement only refers to “as defined by the Act,” any reduction in statutory entitlements would automatically flow through to members. That is unacceptable.

3. Preserving bargaining rights – Including full wording ensures these matters remain part of collective bargaining and can’t be brushed aside as “already covered by law.”

4. Better-than-minimum standards – A collective agreement should not merely repeat legal minima but provide the opportunity to improve upon them. Explicit wording allows that.

   
   

For these reasons, our clear position is that entitlements must continue to be written explicitly in the agreement.