Compulsory union ballots in the balance Comment from the Capital

Press, 17 July 1978, Page 12

Compulsory union ballots in the balance Comment from the Capital

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Nearly three years ago (on November 10, 1975) the National Party issued a “guide to what the next National Government will do for New Zealand.” Below a picture of what appeared to be miners or constructionworkers this statement of intention appeared: “The National Party does not believe that anybody should be forced to join any organisation against his or her free ■will. Thus we will give all workers in each industry the right to choose (by secret ballot) whether their union is going to be voluntary, or compulsory. “Regular elections will be held by a union’s full membership to elect union officials. Secret ballots will be held on strike action. Unions will be required to inform their members of all decisions affecting them. “We will also ensure that the community is protected by law from the actions of irresponsible unions. Thus we will reintroduce penalties for illegal industrial action against the public interest and for breaches of the Industrial Relations Act.” The intention was clear enough then. Legal intentions were carried out. in that penal clauses struck from the 1972 industrial relations bill were reinstated, but. beyond this there has been a strange hesitancy. Only three ballots have been held, and all overwhelmingly favoured a continuation of compulsory union membership. A list of 15 more unions in which it

was considered ballots were desirable was prepared and was in the hands of the Minister of Labour (Mr Gordon) last Tuesday. But it was not to be. A delegation from the Federation of Labour headed by Sir Thomas Skinner appeared after an afternoon of hard work, and put forward what Mr Gordon later described as “a valid point” against going ahead with the ballots. The ballots are stalled until the federation meets the industrial committee of the Government caucus on Thursday. The country’s transport meeting in Wellington, had resolved that in any case where non-union labour worked beside union labour, the transport unions would declare “black” the goods involved. Non-unionists will be working alongside unionists directly a union majority opts for voluntary unionism. If, for instance, the 32,000strong Clerical Workers’ Union decides in favour of voluntary unionism, a situation would be created whereby the two elements would be employed together — and the transport strike would be “on.” Answering questions in Parliament last week, Mr Gordon said that Cabinet had given him authority to ballot 22 more unions. Even this, if -arried out, would represent a tiny drop in the bucket of New’Zealand unionism. And, of course, action by transport, unions would constitute an illegal strike.

As expressed in the National Party manifesto of November, 1975: “Anyone convicted of promoting an illegal strike will run the risk of being banned from holding union office. Anyone who is being hurt by such a strike will be able to apply to the ' industrial court tor a resumption of work. We will permit civil action to be taken for damages arising from non-industrial action by trade unions.” Sir Thomas Skinner has explained that the Federation of Labour is totally opposed to punitive court procedures. It has supported the meatworkers in what has been regarded as illegal action. Its further, support of direct action would bring direct confrontation with the Government and the courts — at a time most likely to affect the situation politically. At present the Government can scarcely be accused of rushing the union ballots. Neither can the delay be blamed on cost. Mr Gordon has said that the firsUballot, conducted in October,: 1977, cost $5.60 for each union member balloted, the later two about $1 a head—the total for all three being some $2330. Sir Thomas Skinner says he believes in free unionism —but under the terms of the International Labour Organisation statute, which New Zealand has yet to ratify. He

does not believe in Government-run ballots on union matters. It is apparent that the Federation of Labour hopes, through the caucus committee hearing on Thursday, to convince the Government that the time is not politically right for the Government to produce a “high noon” situation with organised labour. It would win its case if caucus and the Government agreed that after a token number of ballots (say 10 or 12), the whole scheme should be quietly shelved “for another time.” Much of the future of this challenge—and it is just as much a challenge as if Sir Thomas Skinner had said “Drop the ballots or we strike”—lies in the personality of Mr Gordon, and the fact that he will be withdrawing from politics in November. Peter Gordon believes that the issue should not be decided until some 85 per cent of the 300 unions have voted; “If this happens, and if ail of thenPYotp for compulsory unionism, only then would I feel happy to Task my colleagues to drop the rest,” he said. “Unfortunately, by the time this- number of unions has voted,'T shall no longer be Minister Of Labour.” As he sees it, the Government is committed to hold-

ing the ballots within three years of the original one (which would place the deadline for completion in October, 1980). Some would take judgment against Mr Gordon on this, saying that in the terms of the 1975 manifesto the deadline for completion would be no later than next November. Now something new has been added. Mr Gordon says that after all the votes of all the unions have been recorded, time will have to be taken while the Government assesses whether the ballots breach the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Would it not have been better if this had been determined before ballots were begun? There would appear to have been time to spare for this. A suggestion made recently by Mr Gordon to the Federation of Labour that it would be better if all unions resumed voluntary status until ballots were completed, thus avoiding any possible breach of 1.L.0. conventions, is understood to have evoked an explosive one-word rejection from Sir Thomas. There is no doubt about the political component of this argument. Sir Thomas Skinner is the apostle of “the free union movement” as he sees it, that movement being based on compulsory membership. But so often this

movement, by supporting disruption for ends more political than industrial, has exceeded the powers granted it as part of a political democracy. A serious economic situation has been made worse by the actions of certain unions who work for their membe s without giving any thought about the long-term consequences for all. How many demands have been made recently without any attempt or will to determine the employers’ ability to meet the claims? One source quotes the industrial depredations of the Boilermakers’ Union. In another - expensive piece of direct action the Kawerau workers wrecked the reliability of Tasman Pulp and Paper, and gave Australia the opportunity some Australians wanted to" breach the ideals of N.A.F.T.A. and set up their own newsprint plant. Nor are the freezing workers suddenly blameless for the countless delays that have lost us so much in export funds. So the display of strength by the transport unions, used happily by the Federation of Labour to hold up the promised union ballots, may not be as effective a gambit on the industrial chess-table as Sir Thomas thinks. The reply which many voters are waiting for could lie in the Government’s refusal to be threatened or bullied in matters of declared policy. In this respect the situation is turning back to a position not so much removed from what it was in November, 1975.