Intervention ‘Dangerous’

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31935, 12 March 1969, Page 1

Intervention ‘Dangerous’

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 11. A situation in which the Minister of Labour is frequently called upon to intervene in industrial disputes is “inherently dangerous,” the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said tonight.

Addressing the New Plymouth Round Table on the role of the Minister in industrial disputes, he said the danger was that when the Minister moved to intervene in a dispute and made anything in the nature of a ruling he committed Government to that ruling. "If the ruling is defied, then the defiance becomes a defiance of the Government; and so, in a way, every time that

the Minister attempts to reach a settlement in a dispute he is taking a grave risk of turning what was initially a dispute between two groups of citizens into a dispute between the Government and one of these groups.” Mr F. P. Walsh Mr Shand said that a few years ago Mr F. P. Walsh headed the industrial labour movement. He was a very powerful and dominant figure —“impatient of dealing with what he sometimes rudely called minions.” “As head of the industrial labour movement he was indeed a very important figure in society. He expected to deal with the leading figures in industry and in this 1 must emphasise that he did not differ from trade union officials in similar positions overseas. I “But he often insisted that ' Government intervention i should be personal—by the

Minister, or at the very least by the head of the Labour Department.” This tradition established by Mr Walsh 20 or more years ago had persisted very largely until recent times. Mr Shand said that he had made some considerable progress with the concurrence of leaders both in industry and in the trade union movement in insisting that disputes be dealt with initially at the level of district officer in the Labour Department, and only referred to head office when an adequate effort had been made at the local level to reach a settlement.

“This may sometimes mean that there is a longer delay in settling a dispute than would otherwise be the case. But it has the great advantage of keeping the door of negotiation open and avoiding a confrontation—if a confrontation is at all avoidable.”