A union confused

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33963, 2 October 1975, Page 14

A union confused

Advocates of workers’ participation in management apparently never dreamed that the tables might be turned on them by managerial participation in trade union affairs. The reaction of the Canterbury Shop Assistants’ Union executive committee to finding Mr Gordon Tait, who owns 99 per cent of his bookshop, elected to the executive has hardly been edifying. This week the committee voted to exclude Mr Tait from its meetings. The committee also passed a vote of “ no confidence ” in Mr Tait, although outsiders might be puzzled to know how the lack of confidence has arisen. Mr Tait has hardly been on the executive committee long enough to do any serious harm; his public statements on union matters have emphasised his concern to see the union operating more effectively on behalf of its members, an attitude which the rest of the executive can be expected to share.

Is the union alarmed at having in its inner councils an employer and shop owner who also happens to spend most of his time working as a shop assistant? When the Industrial Registrar refused to allow a change in the union’s rules which would have excluded Mr Tait, the union appealed to the Industrial Court. Meanwhile, it has taken the matter into its own hands, even though another shop assistants’ union in the North Island has approached the Industrial Court in an attempt to force shop owners who also serve in their shop to join the union. The 5000 members of the Canterbury union can be forgiven if they are confused by the decision of the union executive which acts on their behalf, especially when the executive is not remarkably forthright in keeping members informed about its actions. The half-yearly general meeting of the union is due later this month. A good attendance of members might help to establish just what the feeling of members is towards Mr Tait’s position on their executive. After all, it is their union.