Company’s View Of Unions’ Ban

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31125, 30 July 1966, Page 1

Company’s View Of Unions’ Ban

“We demand that accusations against Masonry Services Ltd., he substantiated or immediate steps be taken to remove the illegal bans on individual jobs of builders,” said the company’s managing director (Mr H. P. Oberg) yesterday in a statement on behalf of the company’s board of directors.

No employees of the company or builder clients, he said, had walked off the job or had refused to carry out normal work.

The Canterbury district council of the Federation of Labour is objecting to payment only by results for

blocklaying, instead of by award wages and conditions as laid down by the New Zealand bricklayers’ award. Mr Oberg said that union representatives had persistently this week, in spite of written objections, breached the terms of the carpenters’ award, both by trespass and impeding the employer’s business.

Masonry Services, Ltd., he said, had confirmed with the union, in writing on June 20, that no contract labour was employed by the company, and union representatives had confirmed that this assurance would not be accepted. Mr Oberg said that there were no blocklayers on his company’s staff. It engaged independent blocklaying contractors, who acquired their own material and rendered accounts in the normal way in business. These contractors had their own independent

I accountants, and were ac--1 cepted as being in business on their own account by the taxation division of the Inland Revenue Department. These contractors arranged their own personal accident and sickness insurances, in accordance with the accepted practice of self-employed persons, and were free to undertake work for other firms. They were not in any way bound to Masonry Services, Ltd., by agreement. “Ample provision is made within the respective awards for handling disputes in a legal manner, and In this instance union officials are flouting these provisions,” Mr Oberg said. “Building companies cannot be expected to tolerate continuing breaches indefinitely.” The trade union movement would not flinch when implied threats were made against it, said the president i

of the council (Mr R. A. Hill), commenting on Mr Oberg's statement.

“We shall carry out the unanimous policy of the Federation of Labour, which is to act against labour-only contracts.”

Mr Hill said that Mr Oberg’s statement that no employees of Masonry Services. Ltd., or builder clients had walked off the job was contrary to reports given to the council by senior officials of the carpenters’ union.

The trade union movement was firmly convinced that blocklaying was being done by labour-only contract, said Mr Hill. The trade union movement had insisted since time immemorial that its officials should have the right to approach its members on the job.

“We are prepared to fight this issue, if Mr Oberg so wishes,” Mr Hill said.