THE PRESS THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 1979 Union ballots in a mess

Press, 25 January 1979, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 1979 Union ballots in a mess

Two questions are complicating the preparations being made for ballots on compulsory unionism among those workers covered by the awards from which the Government summarily struck the unqualified preference clause just before the General Election. The questions are: who should be allowed to vote in the ballots, and who should be responsible for compiling the list of names of those eligible?

The union concerned is quite right to refuse to provide lists of any people except those who are bona fide, paid-up members The Clerical Workers’ Association has recommended to its affiliated unions that they should add to their rolls the names of those who have resigned since the Government’s edict. The association also favours adding the names of those who would have had to become members had the Government not acted

The law says that unions must provide rolls of all persons entitled to vote (which includes some who are not members of the unions) as far as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. It would be unreasonable to expect a union, or any other organisation for that matter, to know who might be members if circumstances were different In this instance the circumstances are of the Government’s own making and the Government must do what is necessary to ensure that all those legally entitled to take part in the ballot are on the appropriate rolls. The Government created the problem by its precipitate action: it must now solve the problem without expecting the unions to do more than can be reasonably expected of them.

This would appear to require enlisting the support of employers, who should be able to provide lists of those people working for them who are not

members of the unions concerned but whose terms of employment are. In effect, those set down by the awards. All such employees should have a vote in a ballot on compulsory union membership; but a union’s responsibilities logically end with its enrolled membership. But for the Government’s action on clerical workers, the union would be obliged to be active in enrolling all persons affected by the present award. The law aside, it would seem to be a matter of simple justice that those who feel strongly enough about compulsory unionism to have resigned from the unions concerned, or to have declined to join them since the Government acted, should have a say on their future terms of employment. Allowing people who are not members of the union to vote on this particular issue need not be seen as a precedent for allowing non-members to have a say on other questions which come before the members of the union.

As State-run ballots on compulsory unionism continue to raise such points of contention as who can vote, and who should compile the rolls, the Government’s whole policy on the question appears an increasingly sorry mess. The Government should recognise the obvious lack of interest within a union in enrolling people known to oppose membership. A union must also bear in mind that as long as a proper ballot is delayed its membership may dwindle. For practical purposes a union would probably do best for all employees concerned, and do most to protect the rights of employees—members and nonmembers—by producing a complete roll. Nevertheless, if the Government must persist with its policy it should take another look at its practical application.