ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25934, 14 October 1949, Page 9

ARBITRATION ACT AMENDMENT

e PROTEST BY TRADES COUNCIL

Because it considers that a proposed amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is a threat to the unity of trade unions, the Canterbury Trades Council has sent telegrams to all Christchurch Labour members of Parliament protesting against it. At last evening’s meeting of the council, it was unanimously decided to object to the proposed amendment. It was also decided to ask the National Executive of ’ the Federation of Labour, which requested the amendment: was the Federation of Labour conferred with regarding the amendment; what was its reaction to the amendment: what did it propose to do about the amendment, and what was the objective of the amendment? The telegrams which were sent read as follows: —“I am instructed to advise vou that at a meeting convened by the Canterbury Trades Council the strongest possible protest was recorded against the proposed amendments to Section 89 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the national executive of the Federation of Labour is urged to take action to compel the withdrawal of the proposed amendments.” The secretary of the council (Mr A. B. Grant) said yesterday that the amendment appeared to be a final attempt to destroy the deregistered section of the Auckland Carpenters’ Union. It constituted a threat to every union in New Zealand. Section 89 of the act now reads:—

“The industrial district to which the award relates, being in every case the industrial district in which the proceedings were begun.” ’ The proposed amendment is:—“The locality to which the award relates, being in every case the industrial district in which proceedings were begun or a city or town within that industrial district, or an area being part of that industrial district.” “This amendment could destroy the effect of either district or Dominion awards by assisting dissentient groups within a union to break away and operate under a separate agreement,” said Mr Grant. He illustrated his point by explaining that the Rubber Workers’ Union had an award covering Auckland and Canterbury. Through the amendment any one of the factory groups in the Canterbury area could break away from the award and enter into separate agreements. This could lead to company unions like those in the United States where separate agreements were made between employers and employees in various industrial units. Although American rubber workers’ interests were watched by their section of the Congress of Industrial Organisations was no general award.