SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25177, 7 May 1947, Page 6

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Use of Emergency Regulations REPLY MADE BY MINISTER (P.A.) WELLINGTON May 6. The Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan) said to-day that his attention had been drawn to a statement by Mr F. Coyle, president of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, in which the use of the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations for the settlement of industrial disputes had been criticised. The Minister said he was not in agreement with the views expressed by Mr Coyle, as the ordinary machinery for settlement of industrial disputes was in many cases inadequate. Although the Court* of Arbitration was, under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the final authority to which reference could be made, it would be impossible for the Court to act as arbitrator in the large number of disputes that arose from time to time and which did not involve the making of a new award. The Minister said that many complaints had been made to him of difficulties and delays experienced by officials of workers’ unions in having their ordinary disputes dealt with by Conciliation Councils and referred to the Court for settlement. These complaints invariably related to the attitude adopted by . employers during negotiations. Delays in settlement of industrial disputes had very serious consequences so far as industrial harmony was concerned, with the result that matters on which there had been no disagreement at the beginning of a dispute might be the subject of serious disagreement by the time the award was issued. It was for the purpose of eliminating delays in securing legally binding decisions in disputes which in the opinion of the Minister were likely to result in strikes or lock-outs, or had resulted in strikes or lock-outs, that the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations were enacted during the war years, and although the actual hostilities had ceased, it was considered that the industrial situation in this country was still such as to require the retention of these regulations. Ten Disputes Quoted The Minister then drew attention to the 10 disputes quoted by Mr Coyle and stated that in only six of these had emergency disputes committees been set up under the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations. In addition to that major discrepancy, Mr Coyle’s statement was seriously incorrect in matters of detail. The Minister quoted the following instances:— (1) The Auckland milk roundsmen did not strike as alleged by Mr Coyle. (2) The Christchurch abattoir workers were not amalgamated with the freezing workers. Following the freezing workers* dispute, the tribunal, in this instance, was appointed at the urgent request of the employers (the Christchurch City Council) in order to give effect to an agreement already made between the City Council and

(3) No tribunal was appointed to deal with the Waikato coal mines dispute. That dispute was settled at a round-table conference between the Waikato miners and the managements. Did the Employers’ Federation disapprove of disputes being settled in that way? (4) No tribunal was appointed in the Whakatane paper mills, dispute. The dispute was settled after a visit by the district Conciliation Commissioner and discussions between commissioner and employees and * the management. Did the Employers’ Federation disapprove of disputes being settled in that way? (5) No tribunal has been appointed in the maritime workers’ dispute after the resignation of members of the Merchant Service Guild. He (the Minister) had convened a conference Of four maritime organisations to discuss the position. As a result of the conference, and of meetings with the employers the dispute was so far on the way towards settlement that the resignations were being withheld. Did the Employers’ Federation disapprove of workers and employers being brought together in that way to discuss and settle disputes? Need for Speedy Solution In addition to the foregoing inaccuracies there were other shortcomings in Mr Coyle’s statement, he claimed, but he did not propose to deal with these in detail at the moment. Mr Coyle proposed the elimination, or a reduction of the use, of tribunals. That suggestion was apparently based upon inaccurate information supplied to him. Actually the suggestion would not assist in reducing industrial unrest, but would almost certainly aggravate it. Industrial disputes occurred from time to time which did not concern the making of new awards and which required to be dealt with more speedily .than was possible under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act procedure. A typical instance of these was the Auckland sugar workers’ dispute over the alleged victimisation of an employee. In that dispute the employer agreed to the reinstatement of the dismissed employee when the matter came before the tribunal. Would anyone suggest it would have been better to have allowed the dispute to drag on indefinitely without the Government’s intervention to bring the parties together? In the fire brigades* dispute, where ample evidence of the probability of industrial # trouble had been supplied to . the Minister, to refrain from appointing a tribunal would be to destine the settlement of tne dispute to be dragged out over a period of many months. Did the Employers* Federation consider such delay in settlement of that dispute advisable? Did the employers believe that the Government should await the occurrence of stoppages of work before bringing the parties together to discuss the disputes and have them settled? It was a frequent ground of complaint by unions that employers unnecessarily protracted proceedings under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There was evidence in some instaces to warrant that complaint when the need was for more speedy settlement of disputes.

Position of Employers No good purpose was likely to be served by suggesting the elimination of a method of securing a speedy settlement of disputes. It was idle for employers to suggest that the whole of the responsibility for industrial disputes rested upon the employees. If all employers were of the calibre of Mr Coyle there would be much less industrial trouble, but on the other hand there were employers whose ideas .of industrial relations were appropriate only to an era of large-scale unemployment, and who were unable to adjust themselves to a time of an employment surplus. The Employers’ Federation would do well to pay heed to the (Meets of employers instead of merwf • criticising the employees. If some ’-nployees were attempting to exploit the present position of the labour market, it should always be kept in mind by the Employers Federation that employees were given some notorious examples of such exploitation when the position of the labour market was in favour of the employers. In conclusion, the Minister said that while, in Mr Coyle’s own words, “labour difficulties confront the Government,” the settlement of these labour difficulties was as much the responsibility of employers and unions as of the Government. There appeared to be a tendency on the part of both employers and employees to look upon the settlement of industrial disputes as being mainly or wholly the Government’s responsibility. Yhat was an entirely wrong idea. The Government realised its responsibility and was making every effort to discharge it but unless the employers and employees realised and carried out their obligations the Government’s efforts could not be fully successful Above alh it was necessary for employers and employees not only to pull their weight

in the settlement of disputes, but to do everything possible to avoid too creation -of disputes. To that end, a better state of industrial relations was essential.