Industrial bill’s reaction mixed

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33290, 30 July 1973, Page 3

Industrial bill’s reaction mixed

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, July 29. The Industrial Relations Bill, which was reported back to Parliament on Friday, has drawn warm praise from the Federation of Labour, but the Employers’ Federation reaction has been lukewarm initially.

The amended bill was reported back from the Parliamentary Labour Select Committee. The Government has removed from the bill the penal provisions against strikes.

The president of the Federation of Labour (Mr T. E. Skinner) said of the bill tonight: “I am looking forward to a period of greater ‘work-ing-togetherness’ between employers and unions. “As far as I understand, it is the bill that was prepared between the Federation Of Labour and the Employers’ Federation, and on that basis it is an agreement between them, and it should work.” HOPES FOR ACCORD The only matters the Government had to act on were the punitive clauses proposed by the former Government, since there had been no agreement on these between the F.O.L. and the Employers’ Federation. Mr Skinner said he was satisfied that the bill would promote good industrial relations. “It is in line with overseas legislation and there is no reason in the world why we should not make it work,” he said. It was a bill which he considered both employers and trade unions could live with. Mr Skinner said he was pleased that the penalty clauses had been removed because the F.O.L. had always been opposed to them.

The F.O.L, and the Employers’ Federation had reached “a sort of agree-

ment” that the question of the penalty clauses would be left to the Government. “NOT HAPPY” The president of the Employers’ Federation (Mr A. F. Crothall) this evening said that he was dissatisfied about the elimination of the penalty clauses from the bill. “We are not very happy with that at all,” he said. “I would have liked there to be some penalty. If people from either side break the rules, surely there should be some form of redress?” He had not seen a copy of the bill yet, but if it was much the same as the federation had urged in submissions, then it was a step in the right direction. (Details of changes in bill, page 18)