Included in the changes are the controversial extension of the 90-day trial period to all employers and giving employees the choice to cash in their fourth week of annual leave, on agreement with their employer.
As expected, the Government and employers have welcomed the changes and Labour and the unions are vehemently opposed to most of the new laws.
Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson said yesterday businesses and workers would enjoy greater certainty and flexibility at work with the changes to the Holidays and Employment Relations Acts coming in today.
"The Government worked hard last year to produce a package of changes that will encourage employers to hire, reduce compliance costs and give employees greater choice with how they take their holidays," she said.
Other changes included allowing employees to negotiate the transfer of a public holiday to another day and adjusting the relevant daily pay equation with a new calculation known as average daily pay.
Labour Party labour issues spokeswoman Darien Fenton called the law changes unfair and unnecessary and said they would do nothing to help the nation's stalling economy and bleak outlook for jobs.
From today, every wage and salary earner who started a new job could be subjected to a 90-day no-rights trial period, which meant an employer did not have to give any reasons for dismissal and a worker had no means of challenging the decision, she said.
"The significance of these changes should not be underestimated. It is the first time in more than three decades that workers will be deprived of access to justice if they are unfairly dismissed."
Ms Fenton was also concerned about the potential impact on health and safety of new requirements for union representatives to seek permission from employers for access to workplaces.
The changes meant workers who were concerned about health and safety would have to wait up to two days while their union representative sought permission for access.
Even then, it could be denied, she said.
The onus would be on the union to prove the denial was unreasonable.
In her opinion, one of the silliest provisions in the new laws was the ability for employers to require a medical certificate after just one day's illness.
"It was demonstrated to the Government again and again just how impractical this provision is and there was no call from anyone for such a change. Good employers don't need bad laws and some have already rejected these law changes," Ms Fenton said.
Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said it was one thing for the Government to be pro-business.
"But the National Government is losing all sense of balance and is now clearly anti-worker. Whether it is ACC, meal breaks, holidays, or dismissal rights, this Government attacks worker rights."
The CTU was not opposed to trial periods. Nor did it oppose fair dismissal.
However, the Government should not remove the right of appeal against unfair dismissal, she said.
Since the Government brought in trial periods for small businesses, unemployment had gone up and one in five workers employed under the law change were sacked with no right of appeal.
Unions would continue to support fairness at work, and would campaign for this at work sites and during the election campaign, Ms Kelly said.
Otago-Southland Employers Association chief executive John Scandrett said he did not see the changes as being "unfair and unjust" as claimed and they were not an attack on basic work rights, as had been suggested.
It was highly unlikely an employer would request a medical certificate for less than three days' absence unless an abuse of sick leave was suspected.
The employer was required to meet the cost of the certificate for those short absences and the reality of an employee being able to get an appointment at short notice was also a disincentive.
Experience to date for employers with fewer than 20 staff had been reluctance to implement the 90-day trial clause, he said.
"While a number have included this in their agreements, there is a real awareness that to terminate on this basis is a serious decision. We have actively promoted the need for a careful recruiting process, so as to minimise the need for such action.
"We do not expect to see this trial clause used extensively and abused, as claimed by the unions. But it does enable an employer to take a risk with a prospective employee they are unsure about."
The request to cash up the fourth week of holidays had consistently come from employees, not from employers, Mr Scandrett said.
While pay for untaken holidays remained a significant liability for employers, many small employers were making a policy decision not to agree to pay out, as it was an additional cost of up to a week's wages for some businesses.
Some employers had retained a discretion to consider each application on its merits and accept or decline as they considered appropriate, he said.
"We do not see the requirement for unions to obtain consent to entry into a workplace as being in any way unfair and, in practice, this has already been a requirement on many sites - particularly sites with health and safety limitations."
Reasons to refuse consent were extremely limited and the application for access process provided some accountability from unions that might not have been a requirement in the past, Mr Scandrett said.
At a glance
• Extending 90-day trial period for all employers.
• Giving employees the choice to cash in fourth week of leave.
• Allowing employees to negotiate the transfer of a public holiday to another day.
• Restricting union access to workplaces.
