<\/p>\n
\nPhoto: Unsplash \/ Hush Naidoo Jade\n<\/p>\n
Senior doctors’ emphatic rejection of the Health Minister’s request for binding arbitration was “not surprising”, according to one employment law expert.<\/p>\n
The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists has accused Simeon Brown of illegally interfering in the bargaining process with his highly unusual request, while the minister maintains binding arbitration could be “the circuit breaker needed”.<\/p>\n
Emeritus Professor Gordon Anderson from Victoria University said while the minister claimed it would be an independent process, arbitrators usually took a “conservative approach”.<\/p>\n
“In terms of settling a dispute, arbitration would generally leave the union on the back foot, especially in a situation like this where the minister has made it clear that there’s no more money available,” he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nHealth Minister Simeon Brown.
\nPhoto: RNZ \/ Nick Monro\n<\/p>\n
The minister’s “highly unusual” request may have been more about managing the public’s perception of the dispute, Anderson suggested.<\/p>\n
“Although I assume if the gambit had worked, the government would then try to use it in the nurses’ dispute too.<\/p>\n
“The justification is it’s about stopping disruption [to patients] but it does tend not to favour unions, which is probably why the minister is keen on it.”<\/p>\n
In the absence of a statutory provision forcing the union to agree to binding arbitration, there was no need to engage in it, he said.<\/p>\n
Rarely used since the 1990s, binding arbitration was usually only employed in cases where the workforce was legally unable to strike, such as the police.<\/p>\n