"This is low-calorie legislation.
It is only for 90 days, it is only for businesses employing fewer than 20 staff and it is voluntary.
It needs to be entered into in good faith and both parties need to agree to the trial in writing."
However, there were some issues that would be tested when the Employment Relations Amendment Bill became law and one of those would be around the interpretation of good faith and whether both parties understood it to mean the same thing, he said in an interview.
There could also be tension around whether employees understood there was a trial period and whether or not they willingly agreed.
Some employers would see the trial period as a way of "recycling people" every 90 days, but if they did that, they would not survive in business.
The association would never condone that sort of behaviour, Mr Simpson said.
The trial period would affect several hundred of Mr Simpson's members, but it would be just another piece in the tool kit employers would use to weather the global financial crisis, he said.
Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson introduced the Bill to Parliament under urgency yesterday.
It is likely to be passed into law sometime today, meaning the trial period will start on April 1.
Ms Wilkinson sparked a rowdy reaction from Labour when she said the 90-day trial period would provide job opportunities.
"The 90-day trial period will provide confidence for employers engaging new staff and allow struggling job seekers to get their foot in the door rather than languish on a benefit.
Rigid employment law has the most damaging effect on people at the margins of the labour market."
Long-term unemployed people, young people, people returning after absences for child rearing or sickness, people with disabilities or mental illness, migrants, people with overseas qualifications and people with convictions all suffered disproportionately when employment was inflexible, she said.
The Government was encouraging beneficiaries to pursue employment opportunities and had ensured they were not disadvantaged for doing so.
If a beneficiary entered a trial period and the job did not work out through no fault of their own, they would not face a stand-down period before receiving the benefit again.
The National-led Government had this week been criticised for not allowing the legislation to go before a select committee where public submissions could be heard.
Ms Wilkinson said opinion on the Bill had been well canvassed in 2006 when it was brought to Parliament by National MP Wayne Mapp.
Labour MP Trevor Mallard ran afoul of Ms Wilkinson by calling her "the list MP for the Exclusive Brethren" and saying she had worked on employment cases for the group.
He was forced to withdraw and apologise but went on to make a speech highly critical of the legislation.
The "fire-at-will" Bill would add to work insecurity over Christmas.
Those feelings of insecurity were also heightened by the fact that workers could not understand why the Bill was being rushed through without being considered by a select committee, Mr Mallard said.
"The legislation takes away a fundamental right for workers and no government should be able to do that without its legislation being subject to proper and detailed consideration.
"National is really telling employers that you can hire people for up to three months and then get rid of them without any hassles if you don't need them or want them anymore."
The Bill reduced new employees to bit players instead of valuing the contribution they made, Mr Mallard said.
Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the legislation would remove unfair dismissal protections for a third of the workforce who were in small businesses.
"Now the Government has finally tabled its Bill we can see that access to mediation and to be treated in good faith only apply to employees.
Of course, once someone is sacked they are not an employee, and the Bill makes it clear all rights to challenge the dismissal are removed."
"The Bill is no more than what we always said it was: a breach of the fundamental right to be treated fairly at work."
It enabled dismissal to occur without written notice and removed the rights of those employees to get the reason for their dismissal put in writing, she said.
