KiwiRail exploitation case heads to court
- Rail workers’ union takes test case to determine the employment status of Chinese engineers working under warranty to remove asbestos from KiwiRail’s imported locomotives
- Allegations of exploitation emerged in 2014, including allegations of minimum wage and holiday entitlement breaches
- MBIE concluded New Zealand laws probably don’t apply to the China-based engineers, but the Workplace Relations Minister told media the only way to confirm the legal position is in the courts
The RMTU is heading to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to determine whether Chinese engineers who are removing asbestos from KiwiRail locomotives are covered under New Zealand employment law, announces RMTU General Secretary Wayne Butson.
After the allegations of exploitation emerged a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment investigation concluded that New Zealand law probably doesn’t apply to the engineers. The government was content with the legal uncertainty.
“If our law doesn’t apply to foreign workers carrying out work on New Zealand soil, what’s stopping other companies from replacing their local workers with cheap labour from overseas,” asks Butson.
“If the government had taken a long term view and invested in local locomotive workshops like Hillside in Dunedin then we wouldn’t be in this mess.”
“This is work that should have been done by New Zealand workers to a New Zealand standard. Instead the government decided on a procurement strategy that favours foreign suppliers who, it turns out, delivered locomotives containing asbestos,” says Butson.
“The government needs to revisit its ideological preference for foreign suppliers. The Chinese locomotive debacle proves that New Zealanders can do the work cheaper and to a better standard.”
What: Application for removal to the Employment Court (KiwiRail is the respondent)
Where: ERA, 50 Customhouse Quay, Wellington
When: 27 August 2015, 10am.
“The Chinese locomotive debacle proves that New Zealanders can do the work cheaper and to a better standard.”
Not at all. But it does prove that supplier that the govt did choose stuffed up.
Personally I’d prefer that the work stayed in NZ for all sorts of reasons, but would we have done the work better? Probably, but maybe not. It’s certainly not proven by this that we would have done better.
Comments are closed.