Ways and means to industrial harmony

Press, 25 November 1981, Page 25

Ways and means to industrial harmony

By

GLENN HASZARD

■'s'*'. s';.**'•<? • ■<?>’ »' • • • ’••i' . ■, ■ ! ■ •’ ¥ ■*..'• •'■•.■■ • .- - 'j«: 1 £ ‘ General election « issues: INDUSTRIAL ■g,. RELATIONS

"We all want industrial harmony so that we can get on with the job,” says the slogan on the front cover of the National Party’s election brochure on industrial relations. Neither Labour nor Social Credit would disagree with that, but the three major parties have put forward different proposals on how harmony can be achieved. In essence. National would continue on its present path, using existing industrial laws, but reviewing them where they were felt to be deficient. With the recent passage through the House of the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill (the final form of the original Industrial Law Reform Bill), the Government now considers there is a better balance in bargaining power during disputes. Since it took over from Labour in 1975, the Government has made numerous amendments to the Industrial Relations Act of 1973. Most of them have been viewed with disgust by the trade union movement because many have been of a punitive nature. However, after the Ocean Beach prosecutions debacle .of 1978 the penalty provisions have not been used. Two examples of breaches of the industrial law which could have led to prosecutions, but did not, were the general strike of September, 1979, and the trade ban on Chile. Both are, or could be held to be; illegal because they concern non-industrial matters. In this regard, the Govern-

ment has probably learnt from experience that imposition of penalties does not usually get rid of a problem, but may make it worse. This is recognised in the National brochure, which says: “The prime responsibility 4or finding solutions to industrial disputes must always remain with employers and unions but assisted where necessary by Government.” Those in the union movement would argue that the Government has tended to interfere too much in collective bargaining, for example by the use of the Remuneration Act in 1979. But the Government maintains that “the elected Government must, if the need arises, present and represent the views of the general public who are also affected by disputes and strikes.” - After flirting with wage controls, the Government gave them up in 1977, but has since then annually raised the spectre of their reimposition as a threat to the unions. It has managed to steer wage bargaining along a fairly narrow path by a unique system of publicly announcing, in an almost reluctant fashion, what an “acceptable” figure might be in any one particular wage round. This year the wage round has stuck to the “guideline” of 10 per cent very rigidly. But this year is atypical, because it is an election year, and the unions, generally supporting Labour, have not wished to play into the Government’s hands by exceeding the guideline.

It should be quite clear, though, that no Government will completely eradicate conflict between employers and unions. The best any Government can hope for is relative harmony. Labour has produced an extremely well thought-out manifesto on industrial relations policy, which is bound to appeal to all trade unionists and wage workers. It would repeal “all repressive and unenforceable industrial legislation” and would, after a review of current legislation, look to enacting legislation similar to that in the United Kingdom, giving unions protection against civil law suits or injunctions in industrial matters. Labour recognises that conflict is inevitable, and that effective conciliation and arbitration procedures are necessary to resolve disputes. It ’ proposes to merge the mediation and conciliation services and increase staffing levels. The Arbitration Court would be divided into an Arbitration Commission and an Industrial Court. The Commission would be the final arbiter in disputes of interest (general disputes affecting groups of workers over such things as wages or conditions). It would be a layman’s court, with an experienced industrial relations practitioner as chairman. The Industrial Court would be the final appeal body in all industrial issues. A major filip for unions in Labour’s policy is the promise to remove the restriction on subscription levels, at

present restricted to one per cent of the minimum weekly wage rate unless consent to more is given by a majority of financial members in a secret ballot to adopt a rule allowing a higher fee. Whether rank and file members will welcome such unbridled power in the hands of their elected executive to impose such fees as they deem necessary will depend on the trust they have in their chosen leaders, and how successfully the leaders can persuade the rank and file of the need for increased fees to provide a bigger, better, brighter service. Labour would also restore the General Wage Order system, to determine a minimum legal wage and cost of living -adjustments. This is one of the demands of the Federation of Labour. Labour says that the new Arbitration Commission would determine the legal minimum wage, which would “serve as the floor for the bargaining of industry base wages, relativities, and productivity increases.” Other Labour policies include support by way of funds, information, and education for greater industrial democracy; financial aid for union reorganisation; and greater safety in the .work place. The key to Social Credit’s reformed system of industrial relations would be worker shareholding and participation in management and planning because “when people share in the owner-

ship and benefits of production they become more responsible,” according to the party’s policy paper on industrial relations. Low interest loans would be advanced to enable shares to be purchased for employees, who would repay them from dividends before owning the shares. Socred reasons that shareholding would provide the incentive to speed up productivity. As ownership of shares grew, workers would earn the right to elect a director on to the board of directors. The proposal differs from the present in that the Government under Socred would Kvide low interest loans, party does not say whether it would impose worker shareholding on all firms or whether it would be voluntary. If voluntary, then there is very little difference from the existing right for companies to grant shares to employees, particularly under section 166 of the Land and Income Tax Act of 1976. The Stock Exchange Regulations limit the amount of worker shares in any one company to 10 per cent. Scored would have great difficulty ‘amending this legislation or facing companies to grant more or even any, shares to employees, v Socred also says it TO© establish what it calls clear, direct code “that Sets out the rights and responsibilities of both employer and employee, defines the ®inimum standards and Editions of employment, '-fyo-

vides an impartial system for resolving disputes, and places both parties on an equal footing.” So what’s new? The proposed code would seem ,to duplicate the provisions already embodied in the Factories and Commercial Premises Act and the Industrial Relations Act. Socred’s policy paper goes on to say that the code would form the basis of a just relationship between employer and employee through a contractual agreement at national level, which could be amended between the parties to suit local conditions and special circumstances. . In reality, it is hard to see how such a code could reach printed form when . employers and employees nationally have seldom managed even to meet across the table in the Industrial Relations Council set up under the Industrial Relations Act for tripartite talks (including the Government). If agreement was reached, its validity would last only as long as it suited the parties. The recent history of industrial contracts and industrial laws has shown quite clearly that they are simply ignored when they do not suit the interests of the party concerned. And they have been breached by both employers and unions. Perhaps the most controversial of Socred’s policies in industrial relations is the one that would, see unions merged into industry unions, while workers’ industrial councils would represent and negotiate for all workers at individual works.