Injunctions and industrial disputes: the unions’ view

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 20

Injunctions and industrial disputes: the unions’ view

MR WES CAMERON, president of the Canterbury District Trades Council, discusses the attitude of the trade union movement towards the use of court injunctions in industrial disputes. Mr Cameron was replying to an editorial on Monday in which “The Press” suggested the labour movement might help to frame industrial law “to comprehend the right of the individual — to protect himself from the effects of industrial disputes.’’

Every New Zealander has a basic regard for the law and respectfully accepts that pronouncements by judges and magistrates must be obeyed. This is a reasonable acceptance because the alternative to the law is lawlessness. Within the law there is protection; therefore every person has a vested interest in protecting the law so that they in turn may receive protection.

Trade unionists naturally support this position, but maintain a bad law must be changed. A primary function of the legal system is to dispense justice. The legal system is a developing system. It is changed ontinually throughout the years when it recognises that justice and fairness require changes. And so it is today in New Zealand in 1977; for in this year a Canadian has highlighted the existence of a repressive law in the form of injunctions against the trade union movement.

In attacking the Tramway Workers’ Union. Mr Harder has proved that harsh, repressive laws can be used by any person. Previous assurances that such laws would not be used except at times of great discretion and statements to the contrary are worthless for there is no longer any Government or emolover control over who begins an injunction action. As stated, the injunction law is an extremely bad one

and should be recognised as such and removed from the civil proceedings. To leave it to stand is an injustice as it negates practically everything that trade unionists have done to protect their organisation from being destroyed by the employers or their sympathisers.

It forcefully returns citizen workers to their occupation and completely deprives them of any bargaining power. Supposedly, the return to work will be followed by conciliation. That is a recognising of differences, but under the circumstances the worker is returned to work without power to bargain and must virtually accept what is offered by the employer. The case of the tramway Workers’ Union proves this. The complications of the issues are great, but they are important to every citizen in New Zealand for the use of injunctions against striking workers means that property has become more important than people and by placing greater emphasis on property superior power is given to employers against individual liberty.

In simple terms it is a fact that the court has usurped the functions of legislation in that the intrusion of the court into the complicated industrial scene is dangerous and not the correct method by which industrial harmony can be achieved. This is well recognised overseas.

As early as 1921 in the case of Truax v. Corrigan an opinion was given which summarises the trade union movement’s objection to injunctions. Injunctions against unions were described as resulting in a depriving of individuals of their rights. It was also stated that the real motive in seeking the injunction was not, ordinarily, to prevent property from being injured or to protect the owner in its use, but to endow property with active, militant power which would make it dominant over men. In other words, that under the guise of protecting property rights, the employer was seeking sovereign power.

To allow injunctions to remain and continue to be used will result in greater industrial unrest. Injunctions will cause serious problems and provide no solution to industrial disputes. They are highly destructive of worker participation and simply increase the tensions of frustration and anger. Injunctions, as stated, favour the employer. The court, in regarding their function as being to protect property and the financial position of the applicant, who is in the main the employer, protects this view. However, the court has no experience of worth in industrial matters or in the solution of disputes of rights and interests and the court should therefore recognise this and seek amendments to end its being involved in the industrial area which is adequately covered by the Industrial Relations Act and which, in fact, provides its own remedy. The Employers’ Association members have shown they are generally not in favour of the present law and the Minister of Labour is ob-

viously embarrassed by the use of an injunction. Is it not time for a realisation that we have an extremely dangerous and futile law that is creating an explosive situation? If sense is to prevail it should be struck out before industrial disharmony arising from the use of this law plunges the country into further strife.

It should be recognised that the inherent social and industrial danger in the use of penalties and injunctions in industrial disputes is a disruption of economic stability and justice within the country.

it is time to stop the programme of union-bashing; it is time to recognise that after six years of wage restriction legislation, and unjust levels of taxation, these have not achieved anywhere near the desired effects. While they remain our productivity will continue to fail as wageearners feel disinclined to strive, and recognise that the freedom to seek the best monetary return for their labour has been lost to them.

Overseas experience and precedents certainly justify the removal of repressive wage legislation and favour a free bargaining situation. The injunction situation overseas is covered, for instance, in America by the La GuardiaNorris Act which in 1932 put a stop to civil injunctions because of the very' reasons which are now arising in New Zealand. The astute Lord Denning has stated that industrial disputes were intended to be settled outside the judicial area. It is not the wish of the trade union movement to be in conflict with the law, but it is necessary for the trade union movement to take a stand against a law which seeks to destroy it.