Union penalty bill ‘disastrous’

Press, 12 November 1977, Page 2

Union penalty bill ‘disastrous’

PA Wellington j The next Labour Governiment would withdraw the penalty provisions in the j State Sendees Conditions of [ Employment Bill, said the I Opposition spokesman on I industrial relations, Mr A. J. i Faulkner, in Parliament yesterday.

i "They are wrong in principle, and will be disastrous in practice,” Mr Faulkner said, during the second-read-ing debate on the bill.

He said the penalty provsions in private sector legislation were no more than window-dressing. The Government had told the country that they would work, jbut under National there had !been “record stoppages, and record unemployment.”

The Government was nov transporting the same provisions into the State Services area, when they had been [unable to apply them in the private sector. I Mr Faulkner said State employees felt justifiably insulted by the provisions. If workers were to be told! what to do, there should be provision for groups such as fanners to be told to produce more, because the law had to be equal. The penalty provisions will not come into force i unless the Government feels I they are needed to meet certain situations, but Mr ! Faulkner considers that [there is no protection allowed for State servants. “It is a threat that can bf invoked in secret against a segment of State employees,” he said, suggesting that this was a fundamental principle of a “police State."

The Combined State Service Organisations believed that the present legislation was working well, and they wanted it to remain.

, “If you are going to break ' these long-standing agreements, you are in trouble,” [he told the Minister of State Services (Mr Gordon). The penalty provisions were unworkable, ill-advised, outdated, and smacked of Victoriana, said Mr E. E. Isbey (Lab., Grey Lynn). The Government said it had good relations with State servants, but the penalty terms could only serve to incite trouble. He also accused the Government of trying to “bull doze the legislation through the House with indecent haste” by not sending it to a select committee. The Government clearly did not want too much public scrutiny of the proposed penalties and fines. The penalty provision in the bill hinge on the principle of notice being given of intended industrial action. State servants in essential industries are required to give 14 days notice of strike action, to give the Minister time to call a compulsory conference about whether to set up a committee of inquiry. If notice is not given, or the procedures for settling disputes are not followed in any way, then fines can be imposed. For employees, these range from $l5O for individuals to $7OO for any service organisation representing employees on illegal strike actions. Fines for strikes in disputes which have not followed settlement procedures, or are in contravention of settlement decisions, are $lOO initially and $lOO for every day of the strike for each individual. Introducing the second reading debate, Mr Gordon said that no Government

enjoyed introducing penalties in industrial relations. But, in the last resort, there was no alternative when vital meat exports or essential services were being needlessly disrupted. If State unions continued their “generally good” industrial record, there would be no need for the penalty provisions to be invoked. "I will be very happy if we don’t have to use them, but they are there if they are required,” he said. Mr Gordon said that it was wrong to suggest that the Government would have the power to, directly inflict penalties. This would be the prerogative of the Arbitration Court set up under the Industrial Reform Bill, introduced into the House earlier this week. Mr Gordon conceded that the penalty provisions had not been accepted by the C.S.S.O. However, after 10 months of research and “amicable” consultation, the Government had gone a long way to meeting the C.S.S.O.’s wishes on all other provision in the bill, he said. The legislation had been introduced without the full consultation promised by Mr Gordon, said the chairman of the C.S.S.O. (Mr J. F. Turner). Several very important issues, including agreed arbitration and higher salaries, had been discussed with Mr Gordon, who had promised to take C.S.S.O. comments on the bills back to caucus, and then go back for further discussion. “Contrary to suggestions made in some quarters, the C.S.S.O. has made no deals with Government, does not accept these changes, and will campaign for their repeal if the bill becomes law,” Mr Turner said.