The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1962. “Composite” Awards

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29916, 1 September 1962, Page 10

The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1962. “Composite” Awards

The proposal to legislate for “ composite ” awards introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) would improve the existing law by giving more flexibility to industrial organisation. In a country as small as New Zealand, with fewlarge businesses, the scope for a “ composite ” aw-ard governing the working conditions of a variety of occupations in a single undertaking is not great; but it is bound to increase. Although the change is to be nominally effected through awards of the Arbitration Court the fundamental changes will have to be in trade union organisation. In the case of Comalco, the example mentioned by Mr Shand, many different categories of workmen w-ill be employed. Under a “ composite ” award the clerks would not be paid at the same rate as tunnellers, or draftsmen at the same rate as bulldozer drivers. Different wage scales would be set out within a single document. The almost inevitable result would be the establishment of a single union enrolling all or most of the workers employed and negotiating on their behalf on many matters beyond the narrow scope of the award. This form of union organisation is particularly suitable to mass-production industries, and through the former Congress of Industrial Organisations made an important contribution to the vitality of the American Labour movement, besides obviating irritating jurisdiction disputes among unions. It is a more natural and functional grouping than that usual in New ■Zealand, where almost all

clerks, for instance, are in one big union, though many of them in small offices have much more in common with fellow-employees in the same business than with other clerks in entirely different businesses. “ Com- “ posite ” or “ industrial ” unions have more meaningful relations with their employers and a wider field of usefulness than occupational unions. In spite of these advantages, however, it will not be easy to disturb the rigidity of the industrial structure built up in New Zealand under compulsory unionism.

The chief criticism when the bill was introduced was that it gave the Minister the right to say which undertakings are suitable for “ composite ” awards before awards can be sought from the Arbitration Court. As Opposition members said, this is a curious arrangement; but something like it can hardly be avoided. Before such an award could be made, all unions and employers concerned would have to be consulted, and this could only be done by the Labour Department. Someone must certify the result of the inquiry. If the Opposition can suggest a better procedure, Mr Shand seems minded to accept it. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to insert a clause giving a right of appeal to the Court from the Minister's determination. This is only one of the practical difficulties of making any real alteration in the industrial system; but none of them is insuperable if all parties realise the grave imperfections of existing organisations in preserving harmony and the real interests of unionists.