'Hard-line' memo from employers revealed

Press, 15 October 1976, Page 3

'Hard-line' memo from employers revealed

PA Auckland The president of the F ederation of Labour (Sir Thomas Skinner) has released an official statement by the Employers’ Federation which strongly endorses penalty provisions in the new industrial legislation.

“How can they say in public they have not formulated their policy on this question, yet privately circulate this document?” he said yesterday. The F.O.L. withdrew from the Industrial Relations Council on Tuesday because, it said, the employers supported the penalty provisions. Responding later, the presi-

dent of the Employers’ Federation (Mr D. G. R. Sutcliffe) said that the federation had undertaken at a council subcommittee meeting on Tuesday to outline its policy on penalties. However, the question was too important “for employers to be rushed into formulating their policy.” The paper released by Sir Thomas, which was given to the sub-committee, set out eight principles on the federation’s attitude towards the proposed legislation. The first said: “The Employers’ Federation believes that the industrial relations legislation must contain appropriate penalty provisions which will be enforced against parties who fail to meet their obligations.” Other principles said that no law was enforceable unless there was a sanction for

its breach, and “legislation which confers privileges and imposes obligations, but prescribes. no penalties, would be unenforceable and of little worth.”

“What is the good of the employers’ president talking about us walking out before we knew their attitude, when they had already submitted this document?” said Sir Thomas.

“If they were going to base their submissions on that, we had nothing in common to talk about. Rather than us being precipitate, they took this attitude.” Sir Thomas questioned the value of the Industrial Relations Council when the Government had altered its legislation and submitted it to Parliament “while we were] still considering it.” I The decision did not mean absolute severance of rela-|

tionships with employers — only with the federation, Sir Thomas said. The trade unions would continue to deal with employers, and provincial employers’ associations.

The pressures which had compelled the F.OI. to withdraw from the I.R.C. were understandable, but dismaying, said Professor F. J. Young, the director of Victoria University’s Industrial Relations Centre. The functions of the council made it a potentially valuable forum, he said yesterday. He hoped it would be possible for the F.O.L. to return to it soon. Criminal acts and threats to the public should not be [covered by industrial legislation, said Professor Young.

] These acts and threats | were already covered by 'criminal law: and in the case of a break-down, the situation should be reviewed by Parliament as it occurred. “I believe the important thing in industrial relations in New Zealand at present is to get people involved . . .[

thinking through problems and procedures before they become matters of concern to the public,” Professor Young said.