Meat industry is prone to strikes

Press, 9 November 1978, Page 16

Meat industry is prone to strikes

NORMAN MACBETH, the author of this series, is a former editor of “The Press.” He left journalism early this year to engage in economic research, and was commissioned by the New Zealand Employers’ Federation to make a study of industrial unrest. This is the third of four articles in which he reports on his assignment.

Of the 192 "industrial stoppages” in the six months ■ ended June this year, 84 were reported by meat export works —B2 complete strikes and two partial strikes. Of the 188,375 working days lost in all stoppages, 116,583 (62 per cent) were lost through stoppages in meat export works. These are exceptional figures, even for the meat industry, the most strike-prone of all industries in New Zealand. During a recent fiveyear period, industrial stoppages in the meat export industry averaged 3.35 days per worker employed in the industry, compared with the average of 0.20 days per worker in all industries.

Why is this industry so prone to strikes? According to Dr D. J. Turkington, lecturer in industrial relations at Victoria University, a number of “causes of conflict” can be discerned in the industry. He lists them as follows:—

The nature of the production process and of the product, and the formation of. work groups; the nature of the work and of the worker; the hygiene regulations and heat; the physical environment of plants; payment systems and earnings relativities; the size of

works; the location of works; overseas ownership of freezing companies; the seasonal nature of the industry. “We’re the rugby game of industry — the physical contact sport,” says Mr Derek Morten, general manager of the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company. He agrees with much, but not all, of Dr Turkington’s “causes of conflict” in the industry.

Overseas ownership is not an important cause of conflict, in his view — and he should know, for C.F.M. a few years ago took over the running of Borthwick’s freezing works in exchange for the marketing of all C.F.M.’s export meat. Mr Morten concedes that much of the work is repetitive, unpleasant and dangerous, but says that innovations recently made, and about to be adopted more widely in the industry, will eliminate some of the more unpleasant work. Hygiene regulations have been a cause of friction, and the meat companies’ managements — with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, whose inspectors supervise the regulations — must take their share of the blame for failing to explain adequately the reasons for

changes in these requirements.

“Payment systems and earnings relativities?” — “Chaos,” says Mr Morten. He hopes that the Whatnall Committee (of which he is a member) will make a contribution towards reducing this cause of conflict.

Having to deal with 14 unions in the industry complicates industrial relations, he says. He would much prefer to deal with a single union — better still, one union for the North Island and one for the South. “We have a more seasonal industry in the South Island,” he says. “In the North Island they are killing bobby calves before our season begins, and they are killing sheep and cattle after our season ends. So many of their larger works are in major centres of population that they attract a different class of worker.”

On this point — but on surprisingly few others —

Mr Frank McNulty, former national secretary of the New Zealand Meat Workers’ Union, disagrees strongly with Mr Morten. Mr McNulty, the architect of the national union, insists that meat workers need a national union and a single award. Mr McNulty agrees that 14 unions are too many. He believes that three unions could adequately represent all workers in the industry: one union for production workers, one for maintenance workers, one for administrative and clerical workers. The three uniorts, he believes could then negotiate a single, national, award.

He is sad that the Committee of Inquiry into the Freezing Industry (the “Nordmeyer Committee”) did not accept his union’s submissions on worker participation in the industry.

Mr Morten is not. “The Meat Workers’ Union participating to the extent of a

block shareholding in C.F.M.? No way!” he said. Mr Morten added that he is by no means opposed to individual employees’ taking up shares in the company, and certainly favours close, but informal, consultation between the staff and executives.

Mr Morten and Mr McNulty agree on the need for better communication between the management and the workers — and on the key role of foremen in this sphere. “The man who is promoted to foreman usually gets promotion because he’s a good process worker — often he’s a union delegate,” says Mr McNulty. “He may be no good at all at handling men, which is the important part of a foreman's job.” Both men agree with Dr Turkington that more time and effort will be needed in training foremen in industrial relations. Relativities within the industry, Mr McNulty concedes, are a constant cause of friction — mainly because different pay scales have been negotiated by different unions. Reduction in the number of unions, particularly if the remaining unions could agree to negotiate a single award, would eliminate this cause of grievances.

Rivalries and jealousies within the trade union movement are the principal barrier to amalgamation, he says. The F.0.L., the ''brain child of the first Labour Government, should have been strangled by the third Labour Government."

No-one in the industry is more conscious than Mr Peter Bloinfield of the contribution to increased productivity which improved industrial relations could make. A former management consultant, Mr Biomfield is now executive director of the New Zealand Freezing Companies’ Association. He never misses an opportunity to impress on management the need for better staff relationships, and has won agreement for a staff training scheme aimed at improving the foremen’s handling of men. He has a stern warning, too, for the unions: “If the unions’ attitude is that all the benefits of automation go to the workers instead of being divided among workers, farmers and shareholders; if productivity deals merely provide more money for workers for output they are paid to do anyway — we are then in very real trouble as an industry and as a country.”