Single fishing union not wanted

Press, 30 August 1979, Page 11

Single fishing union not wanted

PA Wellington The Fishing Industry Board does not believe it is necessary at present to form a single union covering the industry, as proposed in legislation before Parliament. In submissions to a select committee considering the Fishing Industry (Union Coverage) Bill, the board said that it recognised and supported the basic right of those engaged in fishing and other maritime activities to form their own associations.

However, it said that, under present conditions the formation of a union to represent their interests was neither necessary nor desirable, but if circumstances changed as the industry developed such a union could be considered.

... Fishermen were grouped under two different organisations at present: the Federation of Commercial Fishermen and the Share Fishermen’s Association. The two organisations reflected the slightly different attitudes of fishermen on owner-run vessels and those on company vessels. The board sought the committee’s assurance that the Share Fishermen’s Association and .a smaller organisation,* the Bluff Oystermen’s Society, neither of which were unions but had links with the Federation of Labour and local trades councils, would have their present rights fully protected under the legislation. . /These organisations have ably represented their members’ interests, and the board would oppose any limitation of their rights or activities caused by the passage of this bill,” it said. The trill, as introduced, would exclude all existing unions from the fishing industry so that restrictive practices and demarcation disputes would be eliminated. It would allow the industry, if it so wished, to continue share fishing, but as boats became bigger and some fishermen became employees "rather than partners a single union covering the fishing industry could be formed. The board said it was

concerned that under the legislation fishermen paid on a share basis at present would be ineligible to join any proposed union because they could not technically be classed as workers.

"Such a union would need to represent the interests of all fishermen to be effective,” said the board.

Its primary concern was that present work practices in the fishing industry were maintained, so that product quality would not decline. It had been calculated that $5O million had been invested in the fishing industry in the last five years, enabling it to catch and process an extra 50,000 tonnes of fish a year valued between $2O million and $25 million in exports.

Apart from process workers the fishing industry had no unions, and relationshps between the parties had been excellent. "Labour relations problems have been notably absent in the fishing industry,” said the board. The president of the Federation of Labour (Mr W. J. Knox) said in submissions on the bill that if was repugnant and should be withdrawn immediately. "It is not the intention of the Federation of Labour to deal with any of the particular provisions of the bill. The biJi as a whole is repugnant, and should be withdrawn forthwith,” he said. The needs of the developing fishing industry would be severely hampered by the legislation, which did not have the support of the employers and would continue to attract "resolute” opposition from trade unions, Mr Knox said. The F.O.L. opposed the bill because it provided for a Government-created union he said. The Government would determine its membership rule and it could not apply for registration until it had the Minister of Labour’s consent. "The union therefore will be nothing more than a Government puppet, which will be registered only if the Minister is satisfied that it will be ineffective," said Mr Knox.