Agency disclosure statement

The Department of Labour (the Department) prepared this Regulatory Impact Statement.

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) provides an analysis of options to improve the operation of five aspects of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act):

1. the personal grievance system (Part 9)
2. the system for resolving employment relationship problems (Part 10)
3. the role and enforcement powers of Labour Inspectors
4. union access to workplaces, and
5. communications during collective bargaining.

The various reviews that have informed the range of proposals were undertaken to investigate particular areas of concern identified by the Government (for example, personal grievances, employment institutions, and several matters in relation to unions or collective bargaining). With the exception of the work around the labour inspectorate, the reviews focused on whether the balance of interest ('fairness') in each case is correct and whether the various systems are working efficiently without creating undue compliance costs or impeding productivity gains for firms. These were not 'first principles' reviews, but rather investigations as to where improvements might be made. The objective of the review of the role of Labour Inspectors was to ascertain how the inspectorate could better work with businesses to improve levels of compliance (and, hence, levels of fairness for firms that are already compliant); and what is needed to support this activity.

The policy options for Parts 9 and 10 of the Act were informed by qualitative and quantitative research and previous Departmental policy work in these areas. In addition, the options for Part 9 were informed in part by an analysis of public submissions received in response to a discussion document released by the Department on the matter. There is limited robust or relevant data available in respect of these two parts of the Act. In respect of the review on the role of the Department's Labour Inspectors, the Department has anecdotal evidence to support the analysis of policy options.

The analysis of the policy options under consideration in respect of Part 9 and communications during collective bargaining have been constrained by the limited timeframe in which these proposals have been developed. Similarly, the analysis of policy options in relation to the role of Labour Inspectors may not have been fully realised and/or captured due to the limited timeframes. The analysis of policy options in respect of Part 10 is limited by a lack of objective evidence of problems in this area. The Department may undertake further work in these areas following Cabinet decisions on the matters.

The National Party's 2008 policy statement signalled a change in union access to workplaces. Officials understand that the intent is to address the process and not the reasons for access. The Department conducted a review in 2009 on union access to workplaces, particularly around the issue of consent. The Department considers that the analysis of options in respect to union access to workplaces has been well-informed through a consultation process with social partners and by qualitative and quantitative research.

Policy options in relation to communication during collective bargaining have also been explored but no review or research has been conducted in this area because of the timeframes involved.

Any changes to the Act will directly affect all employers and employees to differing degrees, depending on the issue under consideration.

The Department considers that there will be no, or very limited, increased direct costs for employers (or employees) as a result of implementing of any of the preferred options. The broad intention is that the options will improve the functioning of the Act. Providing more clarity and guidance in some areas, additional assistance to resolve employment relationship problems at an early stage and reducing delays in processes ought to reduce direct and indirect costs for parties. Some options are likely to have a greater impact than others.

The Department of Labour considers that the options are either fully or largely consistent with the primary objects of the Act and with the objects of each individual part.

Lesley Haines
Deputy Secretary, Workplace Group (Acting)
for Secretary of Labour

Regulatory Impact Statement - Amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000

This regulatory impact statement was finalised on 18 June 2010 and was considered by Cabinet on 5 July 2010

Overview

The options in this paper result from work streams that began in 2009 and have involved investigating areas of policy concern. In most cases, these areas were signalled in the National Party's 2008 policy statement; including aspects of the operation of the employment institutions, union access to workplaces, and opening collective bargaining to non-union groups (this last area is not being progressed as part of this suite of amendments to the Act).

Several of the work streams also form part of the Government's regulatory reform work programme.

The Department has provided advice to the Minister of Labour on these matters within timeframes agreed with her, and on subsequent matters as requested by the Minister (including a review of the personal grievance system and options to clarify what communications are permissible between employers and employees during bargaining for a collective employment agreement).

In addition to areas specified by the Minister, the Department, with the agreement of the Minister, has undertaken work and provided advice around steps to enhance compliance with minimum standards across all workplaces by enhancing the role and powers of Labour Inspectors.

Having considered the Department's advice, the Minister has recently indicated to the Department which of the options developed, as a result of the various work streams, she wants to progress through an Employment Relations amendment bill.

These proposals relate to the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority), the Employment Court (the Court), the personal grievance system, the role and powers of Labour Inspectors, union access to workplaces and communications during bargaining.

A. The personal grievance system

Status quo

Part 9 of the Act provides procedures and mechanisms for resolving personal grievances and employment relationship problems between employers and employees, and the principles and assumptions underpinning the employment relationship problem resolution system.

A personal grievance is a specific type of employment relationship problem as defined in the legislation. The "personal grievance system" refers to the system outlined in the legislation for resolving a personal grievance (including through the employment institutions).

All employees are entitled to raise a personal grievance against their employer. The only exception is employees who have been dismissed during a trial period. Such employees are entitled, however, to raise a personal grievance on the grounds of sexual harassment or racial or other forms of discrimination or disadvantage. Independent contractors are not protected by the personal grievance provisions of the Act as they are not employees.

Problem definition

The Department considers that the system for resolving personal grievances is generally meeting the objects under the Act. Improvements can be made in terms of ensuring that personal grievances are resolved quickly, employers have greater confidence that cases that lack merit can be identified and filtered out at an early stage, and that there are effective deterrents against behaviour that causes costs to escalate unnecessarily. Submissions indicate that there is an on-going role for the Department in terms of providing targeted and detailed information and guidance around disciplinary and dismissal processes and the operation of the employment institutions. There is a low level of understanding and perceptions of bias among employers and employees about the employment institutions and the problem resolution processes generally. These perceptions are important to counter as they influence parties' responses in the management of employment relationship problems.

Available evidence on the operation of the personal grievance system

The review of the personal grievance system was informed by:

1. a public submissions process (219 submissions were received following the release of a discussion paper on 2 March 2010)
2. research carried out by the Department, including a review of New Zealand literature; a scan of international arrangements; feedback from mediators; interviews with employers and employees; an analysis of Authority determinations during July 2009; an analysis of other Departmental data, and
3. other relevant research undertaken by the Department in recent years.

Research findings

The research found that, when confronted with a personal grievance, employers and employees tend to seek advice and learn from the experience of others including colleagues, friends and family, and social media (e.g. blogging and message boards). This can lead to a perpetuation of misleading information, unnecessary escalation of employment issues and ill-informed perceptions about the system. Media reporting influences understanding of the system and can drive people's perceptions and choices. For example, there is low awareness that the Authority takes account of employee conduct when determining remedies.

The research suggests that more could be done to raise awareness about rights, obligations and the problem resolution processes to help increase understanding and knowledge, and dispel commonly held myths about the system.

Overview of submissions

Of the 219 submissions received, 63 percent were from employers or employer representatives, and 10 percent were from employees or employee representatives. The remainder were from law firms, employment advocates, academics, friends and family of employees who have made a personal grievance and interested members of the public. The submissions show a divergence of views between employers and employer representatives and most other groups (although there was consensus on some issues across groups and differences within groups). The submissions overall paint a picture of a system that is generally thought to be fair and responsive.

Improvements can be made in terms of levels of understanding about the approach of the Authority and Employment Court (the Court); levels of confidence about 'fair and reasonable' disciplinary and dismissal procedures; the need to reduce unnecessary delays and costs in the system; and concerns about the behaviour of some employment representatives.

The submissions (and other research) indicate that many employers hold strong negative views about the fairness and operation of the system, and that these views influence their decisions when responding to a personal grievance claim (including whether to participate in formal processes or not).

B. The system for resolving employment relationship problems

Status quo

The Act provides for the establishment of the key employment relations institutions, including the Authority and the Court.

The Authority and the Court are part of an integrated employment relationship problem resolution system set up under the Act, which promotes resolution by the parties themselves and expert problem solving support through mediation.

The system focuses on building productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith and, where possible, preserving employment relationships. To achieve this, the system emphasises low level, informal and accessible resolution of problems to minimise delays, costs and unnecessary judicial intervention.

The overall system has been set up so that each institution focuses on resolving the employment relationship problem before it, and does not get sidetracked by examining how any lower institution (including mediation services) has previously handled the issue.

Problem definition

Overall, the Department considers that the problem resolution system is working effectively. However, there are specific issues that can be addressed to improve the system and its acceptance by employees and employers. These issues involve:

1. the interface between the constituent parts of the system
2. specific aspects of the operation of the Authority, and
3. technical problems arising from the Act.

The options outlined in the RIS address these issues by clarifying the operation and powers of the Authority, recommending specific changes to the Act to improve the quality of, and interaction between, constituent parts of the system, and recommending particular enhancements to the Court's power.

Available evidence

The Department's review found that while the problem resolution system is working effectively overall, there are specific issues that can be addressed that would improve its performance. These issues centred on the powers and operation of the Authority and the interface between the Authority and the Court.

To require the Authority to act more judicially would change a critical feature of the problem resolution system (the Authority provides a relatively low-cost, deliberately informal and investigative approach to problem resolution); would be likely to increase costs for the parties (and for Government); and risks adding delays into the system (delaying the resolution of problems and access to justice).

C. Role of the Labour Inspectors

Status quo

The Act establishes statutory powers of enforcement for Labour Inspectors in three areas: an assessment of non-compliance; the ability to "demand" compliance after an assessment; and, penalties for non-compliance through the judicial process of the Authority.

Minimum standards investigations are growing in number each year, increasing the pressure on current government resources. In addition, evidence of increasing levels of non-compliance suggests that many employers are being disadvantaged by the anti-competitive practices of those who are not meeting the minimum legal standards.

A Departmental practice development programme is in place to extend the skills and non-statutory levers available to Labour Inspectors. Within this context, a wider range of statutory enforcement tools would support greater responsiveness to businesses and a more flexible and efficient use of inspection resources.

Problem definition

The current legislative framework for labour inspectors falls short of responsive regulation fit for purpose in a modern environment, which

1. enables greater proportionality so the appropriate intervention is made for the circumstances
2. greater transparency in approach
3. heightened accountability for the decisions made
4. makes a range of tools available for targeted and flexible enforcement

In a diverse and changing industrial relations environment there is a need for responsive employment relations legislation that delivers high levels of compliance at the lowest possible cost to the state and business. The proposals are designed to generate compliance with minimum standards rather than focus on enforcement and litigation. They create a new focus on working with businesses to change non compliant practices rather than the current singular emphasis on the investigation of employee complaints. A range of tools incentivise compliance at the lower end of the enforcement spectrum, avoiding lengthy and costly legal processes that currently deliver mixed results.

Available evidence

Problems in the current system of Labour inspection are evidenced in the following statistics (see appendix 1)

1. an increase of 52% of complaints to the DoL between 2007 and 2009
2. a decrease of 33% in the average time to complete the matter over the same period
3. a low number of demand notices issued by inspectors, taking more than three times as long to complete
4. a low number and level of penalties awarded for non-compliance.

A review of enforcement powers was informed by:

5. research conducted by the Department into complaints received between 2007 and 2009 that indicate Labour Inspectors are conducting a growing number of investigations into complaints received by the parties to an employment relationship. The Department recorded 1,816 minimum standards investigations by Labour Inspectors in 2007. This rose to 2,307 in 2008 and 2,769 in 2009.
6. an assessment of current statutory levers that has exposed deficiencies in the current mechanisms for remedies and sanctions in the event of non-compliance.
7. an internal practice development programme for Labour Inspectors that has been designed to embed a multi-facetted approach to regulation, drawing on a range of statutory tools and non-statutory levers, such as the provision of information, advice and education.

D. Union access to workplaces

Context

The National Party's 2008 policy statement signalled a change in relation to union access to workplaces. The change signalled around union access is to introduce a requirement that access to workplaces is contingent on employer consent but that this consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Officials understand that the intent is to address the process and not the reasons for access.

Status quo

Under the current legislation, union representatives are entitled to enter workplaces for purposes related to the employment of its members and/or purposes related to the union's business. Both of these purposes are further defined in sections 19-25 of the Act. Currently, employers must allow union representatives to come into their workplaces, and union officials must exercise access in a reasonable way.

The Department notes that any future policy work on opening collective bargaining to non-union groups could have implications for union access to workplaces in general.

Problem definition

Employers have a fundamental right (and responsibility) to determine and be aware of all people who come onto a workplace at any time. This is necessary for a range of business reasons, including concerns about interrupting the operation of a business at the 'wrong' time (reducing productivity), compliance with health and safety regulations, commercial sensitivity and security. While the rules around union access to a workplace generally work well in practice, and have been well-clarified by case law, there are benefits to standardising the practice of ensuring that the permission of the employer has been granted before access is gained.

Available evidence on the operation of current arrangements

The Department conducted a review relating to union access to workplaces, particularly around the issue of employer consent. This review's purpose was to identify and scope any issues around current arrangements that govern union access to workplaces and consider whether there is an appropriate balance in terms of fairness to all parties (employers, employees and unions) under the current arrangements.

There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.

The current practice widely followed by union representatives is that they voluntarily notify the employer (although practice varies from no notice to a range of notice practices depending on the circumstances) before entering the workplace and they also often volunteer information on the purpose of their visit.

There is some case law in this area - these cases tend to consider what "reasonable" access is. Access is restricted to reasonable times in reasonable ways, having regard to normal business operations and complying with existing health and safety requirements and security procedures. The Department has no evidence to suggest that unions are not, in general, meeting this requirement, or that employers are dissatisfied with current arrangements and practices.

Comparatively, New Zealand's current provisions appear to be the least restrictive (for unions) amongst countries researched (Australia, Canada, the UK, the USA, Ireland and Sweden). However, the practice of how union access is gained may differ in reality from the formal legislative requirements of that country, that is, in practice it may be less formal.

There are two relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions regarding union access to workplaces - Convention 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise) and Convention 98 (Collective Bargaining). This proposal to require the consent of the employer to be gained before a union official may access a workplace (and that such consent may not be unreasonably withheld) is considered to be consistent with New Zealand's international obligations in this regard.

E. Communication during collective bargaining

Status quo

The Department's view of the policy intent of the law is that communication during bargaining is governed by the principles of good faith. This view is consistent with that of the courts. Direct communications related to the bargaining, during bargaining, may be permitted, providing such communications do not:

1. directly or indirectly mislead or deceive, or be likely to mislead or deceive, the party that receives them
2. constitute direct or indirect bargaining
3. undermine the bargaining itself, and
4. undermine the authority of any representative involved in the bargaining (s32(1)(d)).

The law also provides that the parties may agree on the nature of communications at such time. Case law emphasises the desirability of having an agreed, fair and workable bargaining arrangement in place - otherwise what is permissible 'defaults' to the statutory provisions of the Act. If employers and unions wish to agree to something other than what is provided for in the Act, the onus is on them to enter into a bargaining arrangement that sets out the nature and scope of communications that may be permitted, and when and how communications should occur. For example, communications may be permitted following comment from the other party, or that agreed communications on the progress of bargaining may be issued.

Problem definition

Section 4(1) of the Act provides a general obligation that parties to an employment relationship (employers, employees, and unions) must deal with each other in good faith. Section 32 sets out what, in the specific context of bargaining, the duty of good faith requires. Amongst other things, the union and employer must:

1. recognise the role and authority of any person chosen by each to be its representative or advocate
2. not (whether directly or indirectly) bargain about matters relating to terms and conditions of employment with persons whom the representative or advocate are acting for, unless the union and employer agree otherwise, and
3. must not undermine or do anything that is likely to undermine the bargaining or the authority of the other party in the bargaining.

Anecdotally, many employers believe that the Act (and/or how it has been interpreted by the Court) prohibits any direct communications occurring between an employer and his or her employees while bargaining is underway (including communications about the bargaining). This is not the case. The purpose of the amendment would be to make it clear that such communications are possible (provided they are consistent with the duties of good faith as set out in the legislation).

Objectives

Overall, the objectives of the reviews aimed to:

4. increase choice and flexibility for employers and employees
5. ensure the balance of fairness in the legislation is appropriate for all parties
6. reduce direct and indirect costs and unnecessary regulation (and support improvements in workplace productivity)
7. improve the operation, efficiency and effectiveness of the legislation, and
8. improve employers' confidence in the system by addressing some perceptions about its operation.

The work completed by the Department indicates that some changes are desirable within the employment relations framework. These changes are consistent with the objects of the Act.

These objectives broadly aim to improve the balance of interest in the legislation. They aim to ensure employers have the discretion to make (and quickly give effect to) decisions about their business and workplace arrangements that are properly theirs to make and so allow them to focus on growing the business.

Any proposal considered in respect of union access (or opening up collective bargaining to non-union groups) should also ensure that relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions are not breached in the implementation of the policy option.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Options assessment

There is a lack of data to quantify the potential impacts of the policy options considered in the time available for each of the policy work streams. The Department's assessment is based on what is known including anecdotal evidence.

Table 1 contains the assessment for the range of policy options proposed. The respective reviews have also identified issues that can be directly addressed by the Department (for example, better or more detailed guidance around problem resolution). The Department will progress and implement these improvements as appropriate. The costs of these non-legislative options will be met within the Department's baseline funding.

Criteria for regulatory impact assessment

The options set out in Table 1 (for each policy work stream) have been assessed on the degree of overall regulatory impact that each will have on employers, businesses or employees:

9. Low level of regulatory impact: these proposals have been assessed as having a minor or marginal impact on employers and/or employees. These proposals are unlikely to increase direct compliance costs for either party.
10. Medium level of regulatory impact: these proposals have been assessed as potentially having some impact on employers and/or employees, either in terms of compliance costs, or in effecting a change in behaviour. The benefits from the change are considered, however, to outweigh these impacts.
11. High level of regulatory impact: proposals in this category have been assessed as potentially having a higher level of impact on employers and/or employees. This means the proposal could impose a direct cost on a party, or require a change in business operations, or individual behaviours. These proposals may also constrain productivity.

Compliance costs for employers and employees have also been identified, along with the intended benefits and the risks of each proposal. The majority of the proposals in the table are the Minister of Labour's preferred options.

In a small number of cases options are identified that are not the Minister of Labour's preferred options and are not being progressed by her (and are identified accordingly).

Any additional costs for the Department (including the labour inspectorate and mediation services) are not identified in the table.

Table one: Regulatory Impact Assessment

View Table one: Regulatory Impact Assessment

Consultation

The Treasury, State Services Commission, Te Puni Kōkiri, Ministries of Economic Development, Social Development, Education, Health, Justice, Women's Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, the Departments of Corrections and Prime Minister and Cabinet and Inland Revenue have been consulted on in the development of the Cabinet paper related to the proposals outlined in this RIS. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has also been consulted.

The Ministry of Justice have raised concerns with respect to the proposal affecting minors aged 16-18 years of age that would remove them from the protections provided by the Minors Contracts Act. This concern is set out in table 1.

Social partners' views

The Department consulted with the social partners during the development of the proposals related to union access to workplaces.

The Department has not consulted on the other proposals outlined in this RIS with any external parties including Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (social partners).

Other stakeholder views

The Department sought submissions on the review of the personal grievance system from employers, employees, and their representative organisations; human resource and employment relations advisors; academics; interested members of the public; and government agencies including Department of Labour staff with operational experience of Part 9.

The personal grievance review discussion paper received 219 written public submissions. Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (social partners) were among the submitters. The Department heard oral submissions from the Small Business Advisory Group and from the Chief of the Authority on issues and potential areas for improvement on the operation of the personal grievance system.

The Department consulted with the Chair of the Authority on the proposals relating to the review of the employment relationship problem resolution system.

Conclusions And Recommendations

A. The personal grievance system

The Department of Labour's preferred proposals for the areas reviewed are:

12. clarify the test of justification (section 103A)
13. develop a Code of Employment Practice around disciplinary and dismissal procedures
14. amend the Act to provide a mechanism to enable the Authority to identify and 'filter out' vexations or time-wasting (frivolous) claims at an early stage
15. retain reinstatement as a remedy where practicable and reasonable, but remove it as the primary remedy
16. provide new powers to enable mediators and the Authority to make recommendations to the parties around remedies
17. provide for mediators and the Authority to award a monetary penalty ('fine') against a party that does not attend a scheduled mediation event or Authority investigation and when a claim is filed late at the Authority (without good reason)
18. Department officials to work with the industry to develop standards or a code of ethic to improve levels of professionalism among employment advocates (not already so governed)
19. to encourage the use of mediation, and
20. for mediators to provide assistance to parties to a personal grievance claim at an early stage.

The preferred options will address the most pertinent issues raised by the reviews. While some changes will provide greater choice, others will make it easier for both employers and employees to understand and comply with the legislation. Where appropriate, changes to the legislation are accompanied by some limitations on both employees and on employers. The proposed changes are unlikely to significantly increase compliance costs and complexity for employers and employees.

In particular, the first two options (the test of justification and the code of practice) in the list of preferred proposals would address many of the strongly held views of employers in regards to the balance of fairness. These two options support a reasonable balance of employers' and employees' interests and address the main areas of concern with the legislation.

The remaining proposals will enhance and improve the operation of the current system by creating incentives for low cost and timely problem resolution.

B. The system for resolving employment relationship problems

Overall, the Department considers that there are specific issues to address that could improve the employment relationship problem resolution system. These issues comprise the interface between the system's constituent parts, specific aspects of the Authority's operation, and particular technical problems in the Act. These have been ongoing public concerns. The proposals identified serve to form a coherent package that deal with these issues.

The Department recommends that the Act be amended so that:

21. the Chief of the Authority is provided with further powers to oversee the Authority's operation
22. clarify the Authority's powers for issuing search and freezing orders so that these powers remain the preserve of the Court
23. the Authority be empowered to remove cases to the Court at its discretion, without the parties having to apply, but after hearing from parties
24. the Authority to actively consider the appropriateness of referring demand notice cases to mediation
25. technical changes are made regarding the withdrawal of proceedings
26. the application of pre-proceeding discovery is extended, and
27. mediators are enabled to sign full, final and binding records of settlement that relate to the employment of minors.

C. Role of Labour Inspectors

Overall, the proposed amendments to the Act seek to improve fairness for employers who already comply with the requirements of the legislation by strengthening the role and enforcement powers of Labour Inspectors so that overall compliance is improved.

The Department supports all of the proposals outlined for improving the enforcement powers of Labour Inspectors.

D. Union access to workplaces

Overall, current policy settings around union access to workplaces are working well for both employers and employees. Current arrangements provide an appropriate balance of fairness to employers, employees and unions.

Introducing an arrangement by explicit consent could be introduced in a way that does not breach ILO conventions. An introduction of a "consent" arrangement is not out of step with other countries. It would, however, introduce a compliance requirement for both parties that does not currently exist.

However, the Department notes that any future policy work on opening collective bargaining to non-union groups could have implications for union access to workplaces in general.

E. Communication during collective bargaining

This proposal is aimed at amending the Act to clarify that an employer is able to communicate directly with his or her employees while bargaining for a collective employment agreement. The amendment will reflect what case law has established on this matter.

There are three options for progressing this proposal: firstly, the Act could be amended to include a clarifying clause which provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing prevents a party from communicating (while bargaining is underway) with employees, including those who are members of a union that is a party to the bargaining, as long as every such communication is consistent with the duty of good faith. The second option is to provide more guidance around permissible communications. The third option is to set out the case law in legislation.

The Department considers that the problem in this case is one of perception. This perception is not borne out in the case law. Accordingly, it is the Department's view that guidance around the application of provisions in the Act should be provided through communications with employers rather than by legislative amendment. It is the Department's view that the best method for doing this would be through updating the code of good faith in relation to collective bargaining. While a code does not have the status or enforceability of legislation, it removes the risks of confusing rather than clarifying the law or generating potential unintended consequences through judicial interpretation. If legislative change is the preferred option, the Department considers that a simple 'avoidance of doubt' statement carries less risk than an attempt to set out the case law in legislation.

Implementation

The Department recommends implementing any legislative changes to the Act on 1 July 2011, or six months after the enactment of the bill. This is to allow sufficient time for employers and employees to become familiar with the new requirements. An effective date of 1 July 2011 would align with the proposed date any changes to the Holidays Act 2003 are to take effect.

The Minister of Labour intends to make a media statement following Cabinet confirmation of the policy decisions.

The Regulatory Impact Statement will be published on the Department of Labour's website, subject to any appropriate withholding of information that may be permitted under the Official Information Act 1982.

Before any changes to the Act come into force, the Department will undertake an awareness raising campaign targeting employers and employees. The aim of the campaign will be to inform employers and employees of the changes and how they may be affected and to prompt employers and employees to be prepared before the changes come into effect.

The awareness raising campaign is likely to include print and internet advertising and articles in targeted media. We will use existing stakeholder networks to target specific groups. We will also work with the social partners to identify potential information needs and explore how they can assist with informing their members.

On an ongoing basis, the Department will provide information for employers and employees through its website, contact centre and other customer services.

The awareness raising campaign and ongoing information provision will be undertaken within the Department's existing baseline funding. The Department may need to reprioritise funding if the Employment Agreement Builder online tool needs to be updated.

We expect that there may be an increase in calls to the Department's contact centre and possible complaints to Labour Inspectors when changes to the legislation first come into effect. It is uncertain whether complaints to Labour Inspectors will increase or decrease from existing levels once the initial implementation period is over. The changes, if enacted, are also likely to increase demand for mediation services, and will affect the operation of the Authority and the Court.

Monitoring, Evaluation And Review

The Department will provide the Minister of Labour with advice on the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of any changes to the Act.

As well as a potential formal review of any amendments, the Department will undertake informal monitoring of the changes to the Act through media reports, research and contacts with the Department's contact centre, Labour Inspectors, mediation services, the Authority and the Court.