Workplace Minister reveals compromise on multi-employer bargaining in IR bill

Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke has given ground on a controversial legal change that would force businesses and employees into multi-employer bargaining against their will.

But key crossbench senator David Pocock, whose vote will be crucial in determining whether the changes become law, has stepped up calls for the “rushed” legislation to be split to allow more time for adequate scrutiny of the contentious elements – but he stopped short of vowing to vote against it.

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Debate on the federal government’s Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill will begin on Tuesday and a vote in the lower house is expected by Thursday, leaving federal Labor two more sitting weeks to rush the bills through the Senate before the end of the year.

Burke on Sunday said the legislation would be changed so smaller businesses that voted against entering into multi-employer bargaining could not be dragged to the negotiating table by a business with a much larger number of employees that had voted in favour of multi-employer bargaining.

“One of the concerns, which was a reasonable concern, was the concept of you could have in a multi-employer agreement, one employer where there’s a heap of staff, another where it’s much smaller numbers, and effectively the bigger workplaces overwhelming the vote of the smaller one,” Burke told Sky News.

He said the bill would be changed so individual workplaces would need a majority vote to be part of the multi-employer agreement, and the same would apply for industrial action and to sign off on an agreement.

“This puts an end to the argument that you’ll end up with workplaces that didn’t want to be part of an agreement but somehow got roped in any way, or didn’t want to be part of industrial action.”

Pocock and senator Jacqui Lambie have both expressed misgivings about the bill. On Sunday, Pocock said he didn’t want to stand in the way of a pay rise for low-paid workers, but more time was needed to “get this legislation right”.

“I want to work constructively with the government to make sure this bill does get wages moving, improves equality in the workplace and also avoids any unintended consequences.”

The most controversial element of the bill hands greater leverage to workers and unions in collective bargaining by expanding the ability for employees across multiple workplaces to force their bosses to the bargaining table.

Other changes to be introduced in the bill are the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, measures to close the gender pay gap and changes to the ‘better off overall test’.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said Burke’s proposed amendments “do little to allay the fundamental concerns of the business community” and called for the final vote in the Senate to be delayed.

“Pushing multi-employer bargaining across all sectors without clear definitions and limits can only lead to unsustainable wage outcomes not supported by productivity. This will feed into higher prices and higher interest rates,” he said.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said the amendment would “reduce some of the most harmful unintended consequence of this legislation, but big problems remain”.

“We welcome the government’s concessions and will continue working in good faith to solve some of the other big problems in this bill, including a lowest common denominator risk to wages and increased complexity that could delay wage increases,” she said.

ACTU secretary Sally McManus said the changes outlined by Burke “will make bargaining harder for some workers and workplaces, and increase the complexity of the system. However, the bill will still give millions of workers significantly expanded power to win wage rises”.

West Australian independent Kate Chaney says multi-employer bargaining should be confined to low-paid sectors.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Curtin independent MP Kate Chaney welcomed Burke’s concession as a “sensible move” and said multi-employer bargaining “could work very effectively in those low-paid sectors” but expressed concern about the expansion across a broader range of workplaces. She told ABC’s Insiders she would vote against the bill in its current form.

She backed the bill being split, as did Wentworth independent MP Allegra Spender.

“We hope the government will see sense on this and split the bill to pass the urgent reforms now, but allow consultation and review of the contentious elements,” Spender said.

Along with business groups, Spender wants the definition of small business expanded from fewer than 15 employees, so more firms would be exempt from participating in multi-employer bargaining.

Spender has prepared amendments that would define a small business as having fewer than 100 people, rather than the current definition of 15 people and ensure multi-employer bargaining was voluntary.

Warringah independent MP Zali Steggall will move an amendment to define a small business defined as having 50 employees or fewer.

“If [the government is] genuine about saying this is urgent, they should do a genuine negotiation in the House of Representatives,” she said.

Burke indicated the definition of the size of a small business would probably be determined in the Senate.

“I expect that’ll be a conversation by the time we get to the Senate ... if you’re serious about cost of living, you need to get wages moving, regardless of where people work and so on. I’m reluctant [to change the definition of a small business], although I expect that conversation is likely to be one that comes up pretty strongly when we get the senate,” he said.

He signalled he was open to allowing a six-month grace period that would allow negotiations to continue between workers and a single business on a new enterprise agreement before the business could be forced into multi-employer bargaining.

“We are considering that, there’s some drafts going back and forth at the moment between us and business, not on the 12-month thing, but on six months,” he said.

Burke added that under the proposed legal changes “the reality is single employer agreements will remain the main way that negotiations happen”.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.