Employers see bad precedent in P.M.’s works plan

Press, 20 March 1978, Page 1

Employers see bad precedent in P.M.’s works plan

The Employers’ Federation says it is very concerned about likely repercussions of the Government’s handling of the freezing works dispute.

The freezing companies, too, are “horrified” that a wage settlement might be reached without the employers being a party to the final discussions, says a Press Association report. On Friday the union and Government officials met to thrash out a pay proposal which satisfied the union enough to call off its strike. But the Freezing Companies’ Association was not invited to the talks. The new package is believed to force the companies to absorb some of the pay increase from their profits. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) told the Meat Workers’ Union that if it gave him “reasonable assurances” he would recommend to the Cabinet today that the freezing industry’s wages be fixed by regulation. “They will involve no further charges to the farmers above the 7.5 per cent in the existing regulations,” Mr Muidoon said. Mr J. W. Rowe, executive director of the Employers’ Federation, has written to the Minister of Labour (Mr Gordon) asking him to put three points to the Cabinet before any decision is made on the dispute. The points are:— “For the Government to regulate wages without consulting employers would establish a dangerous precedent, besides being a denial of common justice. “To settle one element of a total wages and conditions package in isolation would be a serious negotiating error inviting an escalation of other demands. “The future of free collective bargaining could

be jeopardised by the Government’s overriding the normal processes of conciliation and arbitration. This would gravely damage employer confidence in the neutrality of Government-labour market processes and be especially unfortunate on the eve of the rebirth of the Arbitration Court,” said Mr Rowe. In an earlier statement, Mr Rowe accused the Government of breaching the Industrial Relations Act. By negotiating with the union under the threat of strike action, the Government was breaching the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, said Mr Rowe. Section 81 of the act, said that work should continue without interruption while the parties were in conciliation, he said. The Government, he said, should have made it a precondition of the discussions that the union withdraw its threat of strike action. Mr P. D. Blomfield, executive director of the Freezing Companies’ Association, said yesterday he was extremely concerned that mandatory action could force an unacceptable wage agreement on the companies even though the meat workers’ award was now before conciliation. The association was horrified that a proposed settlement could be reached without the employers, who would have to meet the increased costs, Mr Blomfield said Also, many important matters other than money were still unresolved. “Several of these matters, some of which cover manning and conditions, could themselves develop into a major dispute with significant effects to the

economy," Mr Blomfield said. “It is necessary for both parties to return to conciliation and resolve these issues, but this will be extremely difficult if pay rates are set by regulation.” The industry was now in a completely untenable position, Mr Blomfield said. “One minute we were faced with a major industrial dispute because . we could not afford to meet the wage demands of the Freezing Workers’ Union —something that we have proved to the Government from operating cost figures from companies, and further emphasised by the losses made by two public companies last year—and in the next minute were hearing reports of an agreement reached for a wage increase after meetings we were not a party to.” The association was extremely concerned about the reports of an agreement on which it had heard nothing official, Mr Blomfield said. “The reports quote varying figures, many into millions of dollars, that companies might be asked to absorb without discussion with the employers,” he said. “We understand that the Prime Minister will meet representatives of the union on Monday morning before the Cabinet meeting, and again we are very concerned that we have been neither consulted nor invited to attend. “We do not think it would be in the best interests of the industry or of the country itself if a commitment to a wage regulation were reached before discussion with the companies or before the

full financial implications are discussed by the full Cabinet,” Mr Blomfield said. Mr A. J, Kennedy, secretary of the Meat Workers’ Union, said on Saturday that clearly Mr Muldoon had gone to a great deal of trouble to get “this thing resolved.” Mr Muldoon had been “pretty realistic and very fair” in his summation of the situation, Mr Kennedy said. “He is a realist, very straightforward and forthright, with a bit of intestinal fortitude.” Asked how he felt about the drought problems facing farmers, Mr Kennedy said the union’s sympathies lay verv much with the farmer. “But when we are reduced to this sort of situation, what can we do?” The chairman of the Meat Board (Mr Charles Hilgendorf) said that the board stood with Federated Farmers in maintaining that not more than 7| per cent of wage increases given to freezing workers should be passed on by meat companies to farmers in charges.