Unions accuse P.M. of about-face

Press, 28 May 1981, Page 1

Unions accuse P.M. of about-face

PA Wellington The statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) that the 5 per cent cost-of-living order was not a catch-up was an about-face from Arbitration Court submissions, union leaders said yesterday.

Mr Muldoon had been represented, as Minister of Finance, at the hearing in March and April, said the secretary of , the Federation of Labour, Mr K. G. Douglas. The submissions said: “It was therefore agreed as part of the wages accord of August 6, 1980, that there would be an opportunity for unions to argue before the court for a wage catch-up. . “This, would remove the obstacles in the way of reforms to the wage-fixing system, by providing an agreed, or arbitrated level of wages as a starting point for any new structure.”

That, according to Mr Douglas and the chairman

of rhe Combined State Unions, Mr D. H. Thorp, showed that the Government had clearly accepted that the wage order was to be an arbitrated decision on the need for a catch-up. Mr Douglas said that he did not know of any Arbitration Court wage order having to be taken into account for a coming wage round. The Court’s comment that it would be unfair for 1 any group to “seek to acquire its cake both ways” could not be used to argue that the order had been intended as a down payment for this year, he said.

The Government did not see it that way in the Court: and if it did not, Mr Muldoon was “trying to start a new game and that’s not acceptable.”

The F.O.L. and the C.S.U. will Wave another meeting with ’the Government and the Employers’ Federation to try to agree on another aspect of the

wage policy talks — a

wage-tax trade-off. But Mr Douglas reiterated that the F.O.L. would not accept the trade-off without specific long-term proposals. Unions were wary about waiting for the Government to announce a taxcut percentage in the Budget, then negotiating from that point, he said. “If there is to be no tax relief as of right, Mr Mul< doon is really proposing wage regulation bv a back-door method.” Mr Muldoon and the Minister of Labour (Mr Bolger) have both threatened a return to wage-fix-ing by regulation if unions do. not deduct the 5 per cent from their claims. Earlier this week, Mr Muldoon said that options open to the Government were a return to wage controls and a 9 per cent wage guideline, reduced by any Budget tax cuts.

Mr Muldoon said that the caucus was “firmly of the i opinion that this is a very, | very important issue." '

He said that the caucus had agreed the Government should try for one more meeting before he left New Zealand in two weeks time and Mr Bolger left next week. The F.O.L.’s president, Mr W. J. Knox, is already overseas, but Mr Douglas said that if the Government had specific proposals, the executive could convene a

special pne-day contesence^if' necessary. 4 Mr Douglas and Mr Thorp ■ said that they deplored Mr Muldoon’s statement that the Court’s decision was a "terri-. ble pity.” ' 4 f If the Government would] not abide by Court decisions’ it was openly attacking the! integrity and impartiality of I the Court, they said. I “Since it does not like the 1 verdict, it now seeks to offset • it against future wage increases. "This attitude is. to be] abhorred, and can only und-'i ermine the confidence of workers in the system of arbitration.”