Union And Company Collusion Claimed

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30856, 15 September 1965, Page 3

Union And Company Collusion Claimed

(.Veic Zealand Preu Asroetatton)

WELLINGTON, September 14.

There was collusion between the New Zealand Workers’ Union and the Utah Mining and Construction Company’, the secretary’ of the New Zealand Carpenters’ Union, Mr W. F. Molineux, said in the Arbitration Court today. J

The Court was hearing an application by the company for exemtion from 23 awards before starting a £l5 million contract for the underground Manapouri powerhouse.

The company’ wants all 450 workers on the project under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Workers’ Union. It claims this will give industrial flexibility.

The 19 objecting unions say the company has ignored their rights, and should not be

allowed to make a composite industrial agreement without consulting them. The company’s application for exemption was made to the Court by Mr F. W. McCullough (Dunedin) and was opposed by the unions, represented by Messrs P. M. Butler (Labourers), A. J. Neary (Electricians), Molineux (Carpenters). L. J. Hadley (Plumbers), and J. A. Boomer (Engineers). Mr H. J. Allen, for the New Zealand Workers’ Union, of which he is secretary, is supporting the application. Mr Justice Blair is presiding. 1963 DECISION Mr McCullough said the joint venture tail-race contractors were exempted from awards by the Court in November, 1963, and for the same reasons behind that decision it was essential that there be uniformity of working conditions on the new project. There could be difficulties if workers on similar jobs were covered by different wage and working conditions of different awards and there would be difficulties in negotiating a composite agreement with the many unions involved, he said. One agreement was essential because of the isolation of the project and the need for 24-hours-a-day shift work. Harmonious working relationship now existed with the Workers’ Union on the tailrace project and extensions of this union's coverage would continue the relationship. NEGLECT CLAIMED Mr Allen submitted that the unions covering other workers on other sections of the project had not looked after their members. Mr Butler, secretary of the New Zealand Labourers’ Union, submitted legal arguments to show that the company had filed its application too late. It was required to file its application for exemption one month after being “connected or engaged” with the construction industry, and had not done so, he submitted. He and other union representatives quoted sections of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act to show that the company had in effect declined the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Molineux said some prior understanding must have existed between the company and the Workers’ Union before the application was made. He believed this because a tentative industrial agreement between the two was already admitted to exist, he said.

The secretary of the Electrical Workers’ Union, Mr Neary, also said there was a “secret agreement” which other unions could not know about.

They had been given no chance to check the conditions in the agreement under which their members were expected to work, he said.

“It is obvious that there has

been collusion between the applicant and the Workers’ Union, otherwise there would be no point in the application," Mr Molineux said. PAYMENT ALLEGED Earlier, Mr Molineux asked if it would be true that the workers' union representative on the job had part of his wages paid by the company Mr Allen denied this and Mr Molineux accepted his assurance that there was no truth in the statement. The objecting unions argued that the New Zealand Workers’ Union had no jurisdiction over other workers, especially tradesmen, in its membership rules. They said they did not like an employer choosing the union it w’ould negotiate with. Mr Allen said his union was the only one that had policed the conditions of its members on the Manapouri project. It had even acted for other unions. It was the union best suited to covering isolated projects and so supported the company’s application. Mr Allen said. He said that the other unions were concerned about their members only when union representatives did not have to “rough it.” Mr Butler said he found the methods Mr Allen was using “repugnant.” The case will continue tomorrow.