THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1977. A boycott on ballots?

Press, 11 April 1977, Page 10

THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1977. A boycott on ballots?

The threat by the Federation of Labour of a boycott of ballots on compulsory unionism will not invalidate attempts to discover union members' feelings on the question. Small ballots, however, could make the test of opinion so slight that the results of voting would be virtually meaningless. Under last year’s amendment to the Industrial Relations Act a majority of votes is all that is required to settle a ballot on compulsory union membership if the Minister of Labour orders such a vote. As in other voting by unions, a majority of members is not required to make a decision. If the call from Sir Thomas Skinner, the president of the F.0.L., is much heeded, a small minority of union members could produce a decision for voluntary unionism Although such a decision would be legally eiiective, and would enable employees working under the altered award to abstain from union membership, the great majority of employees would still be union members. A theoretically agreeable principle of noncompulsion would be observed; the practical results would probably be disastrous, and would suit neither employers nor employees. The FOL policy on the ballots might well be more effective, and show greater confidence in employees' regard for unionism if. instead of promoting a boycott, the federation stimulated the fullest possible response by union members so that they produce an unquestionable majority in favour of retaining the unqualified preference provisions in their awards.

This provision has appeared in all awards except for one minor award and it means, simply, that all employees under an award shall belong to the appropriate union Until the law was amended last year, the agreement between award negotiators on the compulsory membership could be upset only by a majority of the union’s mem-

hers. Even allowing for the problems of apathy and of lack of understanding of industrial affairs among many employees, the old law had much to commend it

Having decided that unions should he required, on the order of the Minister of Labour, to vote on compulsory unionism, the Government abolished the neglected section in the law for having a “ qualified preference provision ’’ in awards. That provision enabled an employer to engage nonunion labour so long as no equally qualified and willing union member was offering to do the job. The fact that this provision was ignored by unions is hardly surprising: but its neglect is also evidence that union members generally were not interested in using the one avenue, admittedly a narrow one, for opting out of union membership. The application of this provision would probably have been restricted to very specialised employment: nevertheless, it was never seriously regarded by either side in industry. On his return from Britain recently. Sir Thomas Skinner reported that he had the support of the Trades Union Council there for his federation’s opposition to voluntary unionism. He also insisted that the requirement for

“ consultation ” with the F.O.L. that was written into last year’s amending legislation was merely a “ sop ”. Certainly the Minister of Labour. Mr Gordon, appears to have been provocative in his recent promises to submit one or two smaller unions to a ballot first. The federation may reasonably suspect that he will pick those who include active canvassers in the cause of voluntary unionism. To reassure the F.O.L. on this score Mr Gordon might consider allowing the federation to choose the first union to be put to the ballot. Better still, unless he has strong evidence that such a ballot is wanted by a large number of union members, he should forget the new provision in the law altogether.