Crucial days on industrial scene

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32634, 16 June 1971, Page 1

Crucial days on industrial scene

(By our industrial reporter)

Implementing the third part of the Stabilisation of Remuneration Act should have a stabilising effect in the long term, but it seems clear that a fair amount of industrial unrest can be expected first. v

Any hopes the Government may have had that the Northern Drivers’ Union would be abandoned by the moderate majority of trade unions should be forgotten.

Because of earlier criticism of that union and its secretary (Mr G. H. Andersen) by the Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon), the moderates appear convinced that the union has been singled out for special attention.

Nothing unites the labour movement like the threat or appearance of victimisation. Unfortunately. in their enthusiasm for the cause of solidarity, the unions have lost sight of a number of factors which are, or should be, beyond dispute.

The first is that it was not the Government but the

Remuneration Authority which baulked at approving the two disputed agreements, and the authority was perfectly consistent in doing so. At 15 per cent, the wage increase negotiated by the Auckland suburban local authorities* labourers and their employers was higher than any increase approved by the authority. And while the wage rise negotiated for drivers, storemen and packers employed by Auckland provincial wine and spirit merchants was

■ only about 10 per cent, this . was an interim increase to apply for one month and to 1 be followed by a new award s incorporating another 7 per ■ cent rise. Narrow gap The second factor is that Mr Andersen was informed on Friday that the Remuneration Authority was ready to hear submissions on the proposed settlements and that there appeared to be only a narrow gap between the agreements and the authority’s thinking. In view of this information —which, presumably, was also given to Mr Andersen’s members and to the national executive of the Federation of Labour—the Government’s request that the unions agree to a deferment of a few days was entirely reasonable. Third, from the F.O.L. point of view there was nothing to gain and everything to lose by a confrontation at this stage and over these particular agreements. The increases sought for the workers directly concerned would certainly not be approved and the final settlements might well be lower once the third part of the act was implemented. It would be easier then for the Remuneration Authority to deal firmly with applications from all the other unions. Act’s third pari Largely betause the bill in its original form received < much more publicity than the ’ act itself, there is a good! deal of confusion about the provisions of the third part. Essentially, it simply gives authority to the Remuneration Authority. Instead of merely having to inform the Minister of Labour that it considers a wage settlement to be out of line, the authority can now tell the appli-

cants what they may or may not have.

In doing so, the authority is not limited to awarding a maximum of 7 per cent, and it is still empowered to make adjustments to remove or relieve serious anomalies, and to have regard to comparable rates of remuneration in related occupations.

At this stage, the public might be excused for wondering what all the fuss is about But to the trade union movement, the act has always been an infringement of the rights of wage negotiators in a free-enterpnse society; so the distinction between the informal and formal application of the act is important Govt dared The fact remains that the Northern Drivers’ Union, aided and abetted by the national executive of the F.O.L. dared the Government to bring in the third section of the act and got the response an intelligent 10-year-old could have predicted. Fourth, no union, and no

group of unions, can successfully fight the Government. Even if all about him have lost their heads, the F.O.L. president (Mr T. E. Skinner) has obviously not lost sight of this, and his present role is almost certainly one of trying to keep the union losses to a minimum.

However, as the secretary of the Auckland Storemen and Packers* Union (Mr W, D. Crossfield) pointed out on Monday, “Mr Skinner's only one man and he has to stand by his executive’s decision the same way we do.” Meeting today The F.O.L. executive will meet again today, and tomorrow there will be a meeting of the full council of the federation, which comprises a delegate from each of about 18 or 20 district trades councils in addition to the members of the executive (who number seven, including the president).

After tomorrow it should be possible to predict the next few weeks with some accuracy. If the full council decides—as has been requested—to hold a special national conference of delegates from all affiliated trade unions, then New Zealand is probably in for a period of industrial upheaval at least equal to the 1951 series of disputes.

It seems probable, however, that a conference will hot be called. It is hard to believe that then is much grass-root support for the stand so far taken by trade union leaders, and without this support a conference would be a fiasco. What is much mon likely is a fair number of protest stoppages by the mon militant unions, mostly of 24hour duration but in some cases longer. Provided the Government takes these in its stride and does not, for example, de-register any of the unions, then seems a good chance the whole affair will blow over in a matter of weeks.

NEW ZEALANDERS AT INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

CONFERENCE^—A photograph taken at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva, where the LL.O. conference was held. From left are Mr H. F. Callagher (a national councillor, New Zealand Federation of Labour), Mr A. F. Crothall (vice-presi-dent, New Zealand Employers’ Federation), Mr K. Coveny (Department of Labour), Mr T. E. Skinner (president, Federation of Labour), Mr Marshall (Minister of Labour), Mr C. D. Macan (Assistant Secretary of Labour), Mr A. W. Dawson and Mr B. Absolom (members of the New Zealand Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Geneva), and Mr N. M. West (director, Canterbury Employers* Association).