THE PRESS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1981. Picketers in prison

Press, 27 February 1981, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1981. Picketers in prison

The word is about that Auckland union members have been arrested for picketing in support of the airline engineers’ pay claims. This seems to be the impression left with members of other unions who have stopped work in support of the arrested picketers. It also appears to be the impression created as far afield as Geneva, from where a message has been addressed to the Minister of Labour by the International Metalworkers’ Federation. The word is wrong; a lot of people have been misled or are very muddled in their understanding of what has happened and of what has produced a claim by the Federation of Labour that negotiations on the pay claim will not revive until the arrested men are released from imprisonment on remand and steps taken to withdraw the charges against them.

A handful of men were still in custody yesterday; but they were only held because they decline to sign bail bonds. They do not have to be in prison, except by their own choice. In theory they could have been placed on remand without bail. Since it has been reported that they will refuse to recognise the court and its jurisdiction, it is probably impossible now to alter the original order requiring bail —even if such a distinction between them and others who were arrested and released on bond could not be entertained as a tactful solution to part of the problem. The picketers were not arrested because they were holding a picket. They were arrested because they refused to leave a security area at Auckland Airport and police action to clear the area was sought by the airport authority under internationally recognised regulations. The alleged offence amounts to trespass. Obviously it would have been desirable if the picketers could have been persuaded to leave the secure area; the police would not have been summoned; no charges would have had to be laid; no-one would have been asked to sign a bail bond. A determin-

ation on the part of some picketers to engineer arrests and the subsequent industrial pandemonium apparently precluded the application of any good sense. All that has followed is irrelevant to the negotiation of the pay claim; it is also largely irrelevant to the consideration of any law on picketing.

If any attempt is. made to devise a law on picketing it is likely to be the kind of law that prescribes the boundaries of union activity. It may even be the kind of law that union members would rather not see on the statute books; they might prefer to use no more and no less than the opportunities for assembly and protest that every citizen has. If unions consider the implications of a change carefully before defining any changes at all. they might conclude that any prescription for picketing carries with it powers that could be used against the interests of union members. Union solidarity on an issue is something that should be a considered and deliberate policy; exceptional powers for particular groups, acting on their own initiative and without reference to other unions, could easily lead to minority groups and minority opinions dictating against everyone else’s right to work. The factional tail could easily wag the industrial dog. That is what has already happened in Auckland.

If those who want a change in the law want union exemption from the basic laws of the country, they will certainly find that the electorate will have no part of it. Not surprisingly, the advocates of change are silent about what they want. The only clear call has been for the trespass charges to be abandoned. The electorate is no doubt making up its mind now on whether that kind of approach to the law is desirable. The political parties should not be hesitating to declare where they stand on this demand. Their attitudes are important in determining how' the country should be governed.