VOLUNTARY UNIONISM Auckland Proposal Narrowly Lost

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32052, 29 July 1969, Page 24

VOLUNTARY UNIONISM Auckland Proposal Narrowly Lost

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 28.

The National Party conference today narrowly defeated an attempt to ask the Government to abolish compulsory unionism. Delegates voted 150 to 132 against the proposal from the Auckland division of the party.

The debate came after the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) had addressed the conference on industrial relations. He urged delegates to reject the idea that the Government should enforce its decisions on the parties to industrial disputes.

Employers and employees should exercise their freedom to pursue their interests with restraint, he said. Government direction would lead to loss of freedom.

Mr K. P. Lynch (New Lynn), who moved the remit to abolish compulsory unionism, said he did not oppose unionism but believed it would be stronger if it were voluntary. Compulsory subscriptions to izolitical parties by unions were objectionable. Other speakers in favour of the remit said it Involved a vital principle—that the public service had voluntary unionism and this was strong

1961 Legislation

Mr T. Dunleavy (Napier) said that legislation in 1361 had removed compulsion by the Government on union membership, and workers and employers could now agree for themselves on their relationship. “That is in accord with our principles,” he said. Other speakers said that good order must prevail for the benefit of ail; that union leaders should be able to speak with authority for their membership: that the question of political funds should not be advanced as an argument against compulsory membership; and that no employers had agreed with the abolition of compulsory union membership. A conciliatory attitude towards industrial matters also prevailed during a debate on the remit from three divisions urging the Government to continue to take steps to remedy industrial unrest. The conference declined even to debate an amendment proposing that penalties be increased for wildcat strikes and strikes not preceded by a

cooling-off period of 14 days. Encouragement But the conference approved an amendment adding to this remit a request for labour legislation to enable “our work-force to meet

the economic growth targets established by the National Development Conference.” “A lot of union leaders want to be responsible and we should give them encouragement,” said Mr B. R. Donald (Wellington Central). Mr M. H. Morrison (Palmerston North) called for revision of the Labour Disputes Act, under which, he said, freezing workers’ unions operated. Many parts of this act were out of date, he said. Mr Shand told the delegates: “I receive many suggestions, and every National Party conference gives rise to remits for amendments to our industrial law, which seem, in isolation or in a limited context, to have merit. “But in the broader context the proposals often have one simple demerit: they will not work.

“They will not work because people, workers or employers, or both, will not accept them.

Difficulties

“Many people believe that the Government should direct that all industrial disputes must be settled by arbitration: that refusal to submit to arbitration should be severely punished. There are two difficulties.

“Employers believe that they must retain the right to decide whether they will continue to employ people or not. Workers believe they must retain the right to decide whether they will work or whether will not work—the right to strike. “They believe these things not just as organisations or unions: these things they believe as individual citizens,” Mr Shand said.

No-one would accept, after examining the problem, that the Government should have the absolute right to decide “whom we must work ifor or whom we must employ, or what wage or salary shall be paid.”

Free Society “If we do concede such a right to the Government we shall no longer be the free society we so proudly claim,” Mr Shand said. There was no doubt that there was room for improvement in industrial law, he said. He hoped steps to improve the law would come about with the co-operation of organised workers and organised employers.

‘There has been some disquieting evidence of Communist Party activity clearly directed at discrediting and undermining the authority of union leaders who have advised restraint and the honouring of contracts freely entered into,” he said. But, on the brighter side, there was an obvious and growing awareness that industrial relations were everybody’s business—an obvious and growing will for unions and management to co-operate.