Fines for State strikers

Press, 5 November 1977, Page 3

Fines for State strikers

PA Wellington Penalty provisions against State servants taking “unjustified industrial action” are contained in the State Servants’ Conditions of Employment Bill introduced in Parliament by the Government today. There are also fines up to $1,500 for employers locking out State workers, and powers for the Minister of State Services to call a compulsory conference in the event of a threatened strike or lock-out, and to ballot striking workers on a return to work.

The Opposition immedfa ately condemned the bill’s penalty provisions, the former Minister of State Services, Mr A. J. Faulkner, describing them as another form of repressive legislation from the Government.

The penalties reflect those already introduced in the private sector. They are provided for two types of offence: —

For strikes and lock-outs in export slaughterhouses and essential services without giving the required notice of intent; and For strikes and lock-outs over matters broadly concerned with the interpretation of existing agreements, in cases where procedures for settling the disputes are available. The Minister of Labour (Mr Gordon), introducing the bill, said it would not be referred to a select committee, in accordance with the express wish of the Combined State Service Organisations. “In the time that would otherwise have been occtr= pied by select committee hearings, the Government has been able to extend the number of very fruitful meetings on the bill which have been conducted with its employees,” he said. But Mr Faulkner strongly criticised the decision not to send the bill to a committee. “The Government is ignoring Parliament and treating it with contempt,” he said. There was no support at all from the C.S.S.O. for the penalty clauses. “It is repressive,” he said. Penalty clauses had been unsuccessful in the private sector and they would: be no more successful in the State services.

Mr Faulkner said there had been better industrial relations in the State services than in the private sector, but these relations had deteriorated under the present Government. “I’ve never known a Government to be so offside with its own employees”, he Sa *Mr Faulkner asserted that members of Parliament were being denied the right to try to improve the bill because of the Government’s refusal to send it to a select committee. “I’m not going to be howled down by bully’ tactics,” he said. Labour did not disagree with all the bill, but it was opposed to the section dealing with penalty provisions and would vote against it, Mr Faulkner said. Mr Gordon said the scope of the penalty provision had

been overstated by the opponents of the bill. “The main purpose of this section is to ensure that all employment is the same and that the disputes are settled with the minimum of disruption. “In line with corresponding provisions in the Industrial Relations Act, the motivation for the proposals in

this bill lies in the vulnerability of our export trade to industrial strife, and in the commitments made at the last elections.” The bill also allows employers to suspend workers affected by a strike, as well as those who are striking. Mr Gordon said the parties had “to virtually agree to disagree,” at least on philosophical grounds, about the penalties.

“The Government has made it clear that responsible groups who abide by the procedures laid down have nothing whatsoever to fear from this section of the legislation.” The main purpose of the bill is to consolidate and amend the State Services Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 1969.

It provides a system for prescribing conditions of employment in the State services, including arbitration where necessary, and for co-ordinating the actions of the various State service employing authorities in their dealings with the employee organisations.

Factors to be considered in deciding employment conditions include:

The recommendations of the 1972 Royal Commission on Salary and Wage-Fixing in the State Services;

The experience of employers under existing legislation; and

The Government’s programme of industrial reform arising out of its election policy.

Mr Gordon said the Royal Commission concluded that the balance of probabilities suggested that many State servants must be ahead of their private sector counterparts. “There has been much disagreement about the extent of that pay leadership, but it is generally accepted that it

exists to some degree,” Mr Gordon said.

“Accordingly, this bill, while remaining firmly based on the fair external relativity principle of the 1969 act, introduces a sophisticated procedure for making deductions from the general adjustments made regularly to State services pay scales,” Mr Gordon said.

Those deductions were designed to compensate for adjustments and increrases already paid out, and so to eliminate the element of double counting which the Royal Commission had found to occur. The deductions under the bill were subject to threeyearly review and appeal to the new Arbitration Court.

Linked with that system of general adjustments were a number of associated changes, including the replacement of the half-yearly survey system by annual adjustment.

“The main deficiency encountered by employers under the 1969 act is the lack of clear guidance in setting pay scales in circumstances where the category of workers concerned does not occur in employment outside the State services,” Mr Gordon said. In these cases external relativity became impracticable and it was reasonable to look to recruitment and retention of staff as the yardstick in setting conditions, Mr Gordon said.

Other improvements included a right for employee organisations to take a dispute to arbitration without having to wait for the employing authority to issue a. determination.

Also established was a voluntary mediation service. “Arising from the Government’s own policy of industrial reforms, this bill reconstitutes the present State Services Tribunal and the single service tribunals to mesh in with new Arbitration Court in the private sector,” Mr Gordon said.

The changes, which include a change of name to Public Sector Tribunal, would make no difference to the arbitrating bodies already familiar to State employees. “In accordance with Government policy, however, the proposal will provide for a degree of common membership of tribunals between the public and private sectors, and this, by the pooling and monitoring of information about wage movements, should greatly increase co-ordination in wage fixing throughout the economy,” Mr Gordon said.

Mr E. E. Isbey (Lab., Grey Lynn) said that according to Mr Gordon the C.S.S.O. had said it did not want the legislation to go before a select committee.

The organisations were so opposed to the bill they wanted to fight it outside a committee, he said.

“Even if they do want to fight it in another way, let’s have a look at it in a democratic way in a select committee and hear submissions.”

Mr Gordon, replying to criticism from Mr Isbey that his approach to the bill was “half-hearted,” said he was totally in favour of the measure.

The contents of the bill had been discussed with the C.S.S.O. for about 40 hours, and at the end of the discussions the Government had been thanked for its cooperation. He repeated that the C.S.S.O. had told him there was no need for the bill to go before a select committee.

Mr Gordon said he hoped the Government would not have to use the penalty provisions contained in the bill.

Mr Isbey: You won’t. The Minister then invited Mr Isbey to a meeting next time there was a meat inspector’s dispute, when he could repeat his comment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Tizard) said he could not understand why the C.S.S.O. had said it would go along with the bill if it disagreed with the penalty provisions. “It looks as though the penalty clauses are there for window dressing on the understanding that part eight Will not be used at all,”’he said.

Mr J. F. Luxton (Nat., Piako) said that when Mr Tizard was Minister of State Services he too had introduced regulations which covered some aspects of the penalty clauses contained in this bill.

The regulations had authorised the State Services Commission to suspend any employee who refused or failed to carry out his normal duties, he said. The bill was introduced when the Government won a division, 36-26.