Union ballot law "worst of worst’

Press, 4 October 1977, Page 6

Union ballot law "worst of worst’

Industrial reporter The membership ballot of the Golden Bay Cement Workers’ Union could be rigged, says a former Secretary of Labour, Mr N. S. Woods, echoing the fears of the union secretary.

Mr J. Visser said in a report in “The Press” on September 24 that the union feared the Government was going to run the ballot without giving the union the right to scrutinise it, and expressed concern that the Minister of Labour had the power to alter the rolls. The union is one of five unions chosen by the Government for its ballots on voluntary unionism. The ballots have been delayed while the Government considers a reouest by the Federation of! Labour to ratify a convention of the Internationa! Labour Organisation on freedom of association. If the Government ratified the convention, and subsequently amended the Industrial Relations Act to con-i form with its purpose it is: understood the need for bal-’ lots would be negated. Mr Woods is Visiting Fellow in Industrial Relations at I Victoria I'niversity of Wellington. In an article in the latest . “Law Journal” he says that; in the sections of the Tn-i dustrial Relations Amend-, ment dealing with the ballots! on membership of unions the: law has reached “about the; worst of the worst." The decision to require a' ballot is entirely at the whim of the Minister of Labour. “This could even mean that the minister could require a ballot to be held after reading in the morning newspaper that some official of the union had criticised the Government.” He may arrive at his decision on anv reason what-!' soever, says Mr Woods.

"He might instruct the . registrar to delete certain names and addresses, in any 1 number, from the roil as 5 supplied by the union, and to - add to the roll a list of' t names and addresses of per-’ 1 sons supplied by the Min-j f| ister. / "This can be kept secret: Isince he registrar is not re-j >:quired to disclose the amend-’ -jments, or to open the roll to -{scrutiny. 3 ; “There are no provisions, »jas to how the ballot papers j .'are to be handled, and it f 1 would appear that the regis-l , trar mav put them in his I r satchel and take them home f with him to be counted: secretly there, or to take i them to the Minister’s office ‘ to be counted there. No-one ’is provided to check the count,” says Mr Woods. Mr Woods says that when ’the law was passed the normal safeguards against .•bad law apparently failed. He Questions the calibre of J the law draftsmen who !allowed the ballot provisions .’to pass through their (hands with such provisions! las returning officers withoutl 'scrutineers and electoral rolls (without right of inspection.! He also Questions whether! •the law, when it passed to, ithe Department of Labour ’for examination and comment, was ignored, or t’.e I 'deficiencies not identified. The bill, with its “defective” provisions. then passed to a select committee ■for close examination. 1 In spite of submissions by iMr Woods pointing to the! “deficiencies,” the committee! •“chose to ignore them.” Then the majority of the' Members in the House voted’ in favour of the sections. 11

! The Minister of Labour (Mr 'Gordon) said last evening j that he was concerned about the prominence given to Mr I Woods’s article in the “Law I Journal.” i He said he intended to i reply in detail to the Icriticstn. “However. I think it should jbe pointed out at this stage i that many of the criticisms ‘made by Mr Woods can equ--1 ally be levelled at the pro- • cedures for ballots on the 'Unqualified preference proviI sion which have been with us I since 1961, during which time IMr Woods served as Secretary of Labour,” he said. j The main difference in the new law was the power of the Minister to select which unions should be balloted. Mr Woods had cast reflections on his department and on Parliament which were quite unwarranted, and which he was in no position to I make, said Mr Gordon. ! Earlier, he said that both jhe and the present Secretary I of Labour (Mr G. L. Jackson) : were disturbed by the article. The article would be (researched in depth, and he (and Mr Jackson wished to I “reply in kind” in the same (journal. The article covered many aspects of the Industrial Relations Amendment Act and raised some quite pertinent points. “I would bow to Mr Woods’s knowledge,” said Mr Gordon. “We w'ere both disturbed by the article . . . and certainly I have called for an immediate report. And I do j know that the Secretary of :Labour is deeply upset too,”: Ihe said.