Mosgiel pay talks fail: action likely

Press, 12 July 1980, Page 6

Mosgiel pay talks fail: action likely

PA Dunedin Negotiations for redundancy pay for the 1060 employees of Mosgiel Ltd., have broken down. Neither side is saying much but industrial action seems likely. After about 20 hours of talks, the company receivers announced that the proposed basis for redundancy pay had been rejected unanimously by the combined Mosgiel unions’ negotiating team. Silence surrounds the talks, which began on Thursday morning with the expectation of an early, successful agreement. It has not turned out that way, and some bitter scenes are reported to have occurred during the talks. The receivers, Messrs A. Anderson and W. J. Tompkins, would not say who would make the next move. They may need to consult the debenture-holders further because the amount involved in redundancy payments is believed to average about $2OOO a worker, or more than $2 million. The combined unions plan a meeting J .jmorrow. They have said all along that unless satisfactory redundancy terms are negotiated, they will black all Mosgiel factories making any sale impossible. The one bright spot yester-

dav was that the Bank of New Zealand, a first-debenture holder, has agreed to release the freeze on employee savings scheme deposits, transferring the money to ordinary B.N.Z. savings accounts. More than $128,000 is tied up in the scheme. The money should be available as soon as the paperwork is..: completed. 7 Mr Anderson said the B.N.Z. move was a generous gesture. ' i The receivers said: “We have proposed a basis for redundancy payments which we believe is fair to all employees of Mosgiel, Ltd, both union and otherwise, and to the debenture-holders whom we represent. This has been rejected unanimously, by the combined unions’ executive.? Neither the receivers nor the union negotiators would discuss the nature of the negotiations, nor even basis of the dispute. However, it has been possible to piece together an outline of the demands of each side. The key influence on the talks has been urgency. The company is running at a huge monthly loss, new orders are not being taken, and existing orders are rapidly being completed. Some divisions are virtually idle, and the deben-ture-holders and the receivers have wanted a speedy conclusion, one way or another. The receivers indicated

earlier that they want to begin laying off staff immediately, but.they could not risk threatened industrial action which would have prevented; any sale. Only by settling re-j dundancy terms will this bei avoided. The unions have] made this clear from the beginning of Mosgiel’s troubles. Those close to the talks say that- it is reasonable to assume ■ the debenture-holders wanted to get out of redundancy as cheaply as possible, given the losses that have already been accumulated, and that the unions were seeking as much as ■ possible under the terms of the textile industry agreement. The unions wanted redundancy based on each individual’s average weekly earnings (including bonuses, incentives of various kinds, margins, etc.) plus unused sick leave, all to be paid out according to the industry agreement. This is two weeks notice, plus up to five days sick leave, plus two weeks pay for employees with between one week and., six months service, three weeks pay for those with between six months and 12 months service, and one week’s pay for each additional full year of employment. The receivers offered similar terms except for two important differences: the rate was to be on the basic award level, and there was no offer on sick pay.