STRIKE BALLOTS BILL PASSED

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25282, 6 September 1947, Page 10

STRIKE BALLOTS BILL PASSED

PARLIAMENT

Defeat of Opposition Amendments PENALTY CLAUSE SOUGHT (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON, September 5. The most controversial legislation of the present session—the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill —was passed by the House of Representatives to-day. Discussion on the bill, in its commit- 1 tee stages, was punctuated by the ring- ; ing of the division bells, but the Government each time defeated the Op- ! position amendments. The legislation, sponsored by the Minister -»f Labour •Mr A. McLagan). was the first im- : portant measure Mr McLagan has in- ! troduced since he was elected to Parlia- ' went, and the early stages of the debate were marked by numerous clashes between the Minister and members of the Opposition. In spite of much cross-talk and criticism from Opposition speakers. Mr McLagan at no stage displayed irrita- | lion at the heckling. The purpose of the amendment he I moved last evening was tc ensure I secrecy where unions had no rules to | Srovide for the taking of a secret allot, said Mr T. P. Shand (Opposition. Marlborough). Mr McLagan said there was pro- ' vision in the main act to cover such | cases, and there was also provision ' lor the Labour Department, to which | the Registrar of Industriaf Unions be- I longed, to exercise supervision over | any ballot. The amendment was lost I by 36 votes to 37. Mr F. Langstone (Government, I RoskilD before the division was called ! to the telephone to be given news of I a family bereavement. When the postponed amendment of | Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn> was discussed, Mr McLagan said it had been carefully considered, and in his opinion the amendment would merely weaken the clause. There could be various kinds of strikes without men being called out at all, but if the amendment was accepted there would be no need for a ballot in such cases. “Go-slow” Policy c of . the Opposition (Mr • O. Holland): Give us an example? Mr McLagan: A “go-slow” strike. Mr Holland: Would you call a “go slow” a strike? 6 Mr McLagan: Yes, it is a strike. Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) asked what was the position about stop-work meetings, and whether it would be necessary to hold a secret ballot before a stop-work meeting could be held. Mr McAlpine’s amendment was defeated by 37 votes to 35, the Opposition giving a pair to Mr Langstone. Another amendment moved by Mr J. T. Watts (Opposition, St. Albans) was also defeated. Mr Watts sought to introduce a clause that the Registrar of Unions should decide which members of a union should be entitled to vote in a ballot. An amendment moved by Mr D M Rae (Opposition, Parnell) sought to substitute for the provision that the Registrar of Unions “may conduct a ballot,” the words, “shall, if and so long as a strike continues, conduct a ballot.” After discussion the amendment was defeated on the voices. Mr Sheat moved the most important of the amendments sponsored by the Opposition. He sought to add a new sub-clause providing that “if a strike takes place, and any members of an industrial union, or any section of an industrial union, are parties to the strike, then, unless not more than 30 days before the strike took place a valid and effectual secret ballot was held, as required by this section, and unless the number of valid votes cast in favour of the strike taking place exceeded one half of the total number of members entitled to vote in such a ballot; every member of the union who is a party to the strike shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £2O, and every officer of the union shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £2O. unless he proves that he had no means of knowing of the imminence of the itrike, or that he took every step possible to ensure compliance with the rule and to prevent the strike.” Outside Pressure Alleged Mr Sheat said his amendment sought to reintroduce the penal clause, which was in the original bill as approved by the Labour caucus, and which was removed Iw the Minister at the instigation oWertain persons who applied pressure to the Minister from outside the House, thereby over-riding the considered opinion of the caucus. To provide a procedure for secret ballots, but to neglect to provide any penalty if that procedure was defied, was to render the procedure farcical and void, Mr Sheat said. The Opposition had added a proviso that a ballot must be conducted within 30 days of a strike. That would prevent a strike being conducted on the basis of a “stale” ballot, which might have been held on some other strike proposal at an earlier date. Sooner or later further measures would have to be taken to deal with the calling of strikes, said Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Piako). He predicted that if the Government did not now accept the amendment reinstating penalties it would have to legislate to that effect before long if it were to remain the Government. Mr Holland said the Government was trying to reduce strikes by giving workers a secret ballot on the strike issue. The law said there was a penalty for striking, but how could there be a prosecution if the decision to strike was made by a secret ballot. Minister’s Reply Mr McLagan said Mr Sheat had “worn himself threadbare” about the supposed pressure to which the Minister had submitted. Mr Sheat would do better to consider who was overridden by me secretary of the Employers' Federation, who had “worn the spurs and done some pretty rough riding.” While there was no monetary penalty, the bill provided the most appropriate of penalties, in that those who neglected to conduct a ballot would not profit from their unlawful actions because a ballot would still be held by the registrar. Mr Sheat. explaining what had happened in the Labour Bills Committee, said he had proposed calling the secretary of the Federation of Labour to give evidence. Mr G. C. Camp secretary of the Employers’ Federation, had said: “Don’t start that. We don’t want to compel witnesses to attend.” Mr Sheat denied that Mr Camp’s words influenced his own decision not to proceed with his suggestion. He had i merely decided that it was better to leave the Federation of Labour to expose its insincerity by ignoring the committee. The best thing that had happened was that the Federation of Labour did not come near the committee, but obtained its demands by ; going round to the back door. The amendment was defeated on the voices.