Tough industrial law proposed

Press, 15 August 1981, Page 2

Tough industrial law proposed

Parliamentary reporter

Tough new industrial legislation was introduced in Parliament yesterday in a bill which will cover both the private and public sector. Among the major provisions of the bill are clauses which will:

• Allow the Government to refer disputes in essential industries to the Arbitration Courts. • Enable the Court to order a return to work.

• Provide for substantial fines for non-compliance with an order to return to work.

©Allow employers to suspend workers for partial stoppages or restrictive practices. • Remove workers’ entitlement to wages and salaries if so suspended.

© Remove the obligation on employers to pay wages and salaries in the event of a lock-out.

Introducing the bill, the Minister of Labour. (Mr Bolger) said the purpose of it was to provide a completely new procedure to handle disputes which affected the public interest. “For some considerable time now I have been concerned that the procedures governing disputes in essential industries are inadequate to effectively safeguard the public interest,” he said. At present, there is a requirement to give 14 days’ notice of intention to strike or lock-out in an essential industry, but there are no special procedures which may be initiated by the Government to deal with such disputes. The bill provides for such a procedure to be incorporated in both the Industrial Relations Act and the State Services Conditions of Employment Act.

Under the new provisions, the procedure may be set in train by either the Minister of Labour or the Minister of State Services, as appropriate.

The procedure proposed by the bill will be limited to a defined set of industries, being those already designated as essential industries in the present relevant acts together with all aspects of the dairy industry, the operation of hospitals and ambulances, the disposal of sewage. , and an expansion of outlets for the sale of meat to include supermarkets. It will also be available to deal with disputes in meat export slaughterhouses where the public interest is threatened by a major dispute in the freezing industry. The first requirement of the bill is that the Minister is of the opinion that a strike or lock-out exists or is threatened that will substantially affect the public interest. He may then request a conciliator or mediator to inquire into the dispute and report to him. The Minister may ask the conciliator to attempt to settle the dispute. When the report has been made, and if- the dispute remains unresolved, the Minister may refer it to the Arbitration Court which can settle the dispute or lay down a procedure for doing so.

If, in spite of the Court’s determination, full work does not resume, a party to the dispute, or the Minister, can apply to the Court for an order for the resumption of normal work.

Failure to comply with such an order will make an employer liable to a fine of up to $3OOO, and a further fine of $lOO a day for every day during which the failure to comply continues.

The comparative penalties for which individual workers will be liable will be $3OO and $lO a day. Further, every union will be liable to a penalty of up to $3OOO and a further $lOO a day if it is proved that any officer or member of the committee of management of the union advocated or suggested non-compliance, failed to inform any worker that he would be liable to penalty, or incited, aided, or abetted non-compliance.

Furthermore, each officer or member of the committee of management will be liable to an individual fine of $l5OO and a further $4O a day if proved to have committed any of the above actions. The second major thrust of the bill concerns the suspension of workers on strike. At present, most awards and agreements permit employers to deduct wages for time lost during a total stoppage, but not for partial stoppages or restrictive practices.

The proposed amendment will expressly authorise employers to suspend any worker who is taking such action if circumstances warrant. The suspension of all or any workers who are party to a strike will not end the strike, and the workers shall not be entitled to wages or salaries.

Another provision in the bill will absolve employers from liability for the payment of wages in the event of a lock-out.

“At present, employers are constrained, by the prospect of having to pay wages, from using the lock-out as a weapon to counter selective strike action, by unions,” said Mr Bolger.

“In the circumstances of a lock-out, employers already suffer a loss through a halt

in production. There is no need to compound this by requiring them to pay wages," ne said.

The bill also makes changes to the personal grievance procedures in the existing law. Unsettled grievances must be referred to the Arbitration Court under the present law and Mr Bolger said that in some instances this resulted in lengthy delays before the matter was settled.

The bill proposes that each grievance committee shall have a chairman mutually agreed on by the parties or, failing agreement, a conciliator or mediator or his nominee.

In addition, the employer shall have the right to be assisted or represented before the grievance committee by an employer’s organisation or agent. No similar provision is made for a union to be similarly assisted or represented. Decisions shall be made by a majority of the committee, or failing a majority by the chairman, or else the chairman may, refer the grievance to the Arbitration Court for settlement. Any decisions by the committee will be appealable to the Arbitration Court. Labour’s Shadow Minister of Labour (Mr Isbey) described the bill as “an election gimmick” destined to lie on the books during the General Election campaign.

It was more of an incitement to confrontation and friction than a measure for industrial harmony, he said. The bill was given its first reading and referred to the Labour and Education Select Committee for consideration.

The provisions in the bill relating to lock-outs would amount to a wholesale licence for employers to

breach legal contracts of employment, said a lecturer in industrial relations at the University of Canterburv, Mr W. K. Burge. “In reality this will mean that employers faced with shortfalls in work will be able to legally suspend workers at whim.

“To suggest, as Mr Bolger has. that these measures will provide a greater balance in the bargaining strength between employers and unions is an utter and obvious nonsense," said Mr Burge. . The proposed amendments emphasised placing more shackles on workers and attempted to ensure the Government was returned to the Treasury benches, said the secretary of the Meat Workers’ Union, Mr A. J. Kennedy, yesterday. • On the proposal that employers be given the power to suspend workers who impose limited bans, Mr Kennedy said that employers were already finding ways to do this.