A parliamentary report into the federal government's industrial relations bill has recommended carving out a greater number of small businesses from multi-employer bargaining.
But union and business groups clashing over the legislation agree the change would amount to a minor tweak, setting the stage for a Senate showdown over the omnibus bill next week.
The committee, which contained a majority of Labor members, concluded the bill should be passed while recommending seven changes.
The report earmarks the definition of a small business, and the power of unions to veto agreements, as two areas requiring changes.
ACT senator David Pocock, who will likely decide the fate of the legislation, maintained his opposition to the bill in its current form while criticising the "inadequate time" given to the committee.
"Those provisions of deepest concern should be split out and considered separately with adequate time to work through any unintended consequences," he said in response to the report.
The federal government has so far resisted splitting the bill and wants it passed before Christmas.
'You are asking small businesses to undertake significant investment'
The committee recommended modest changes to the definition of a small business within the single-interest bargaining stream, an element of the legislation which has been maligned by business groups, the opposition and some crossbenchers.
The committee recommended the definition of a small business employer be increased from fewer than 15 employees, to fewer than 20 employees, including regular casuals.
But chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) Andrew McKellar maintained the figure should be increased to at least 100.
"Otherwise, you are asking small and medium-sized businesses who don't have a HR department to undertake significant investment and resources to enter into the sorts of bargaining processes that this bill is going to force upon them," he said.
The committee found increasing the scope of the exemption would restrict a larger number of workplaces from accessing multi-employer bargaining, thus placing "a significant limitation on the rights of these employees".
"The committee is of the view that the mechanism for determining the number of employees should continue to be headcount, including regular and systematic casuals," Labor chair Tony Sheldon said.
Earlier this month, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke said "there is a reasonable conversation to be had" about the threshold for a small business.
'Veto power' addressed
The committee also recommended amendments to curtail the ability of smaller trade unions to frustrate the bargaining process.
The bill at present requires the written approval of every employee organisation that is a party to a multi-employer agreement before it can be put to a vote.
The Australian Industry Group expressed concern this amounted to a veto power for smaller unions that played a minor role within a workplace.
The committee recommended amendments so that a party could not unreasonably withhold agreement for a proposed agreement to be voted on, and the Fair Work Commission was empowered to intervene if it did.
Other recommendations include:
- Clarifying the role of conciliation in disputes over flexible working arrangements
- Clarifying that the protections under the fair work act apply regardless of immigration status
- Reviewing provisions around sexual harassment for consistency with other discrimination legislation
- Amending the minimum bargaining period for intractable disputes
- Reviewing the bill within three years
Mr McKellar said the report made little progress on reaching a compromise.
"The ball is in the government's court," he said.
"It's not clear to me why they are persisting in this manner.
Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O'Neil agreed the report contained "relatively minor changes", but said that showed the strength of the bill.
"This report makes it clear that it's the totality of the bill that works to lift wages," she said.
"If you split out parts of it, then you won't see the impact that's urgently needed."
In a dissenting report, Coalition said the government should "immediately delay the passage of this legislation to allow for a longer and broader consultation process".
