THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1982. After a costly meat strike

Press, 5 March 1982, Page 14

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1982. After a costly meat strike

The settlement of the freezing works dispute must bring relief to fanners, to the community, and to freezing workers up and down the country who found themselves losing millions of dollars in wages. Getting stock moving again through the works was vital for the well-being of New Zealand’s most important export industry at the height of the killing season. Even so, this is little cause for satisfaction in the dispute that caused the strike, or in the settlement achieved.

When the Gear meat processing plant at Petone closed last year, just before freezing works opened for the new season, permanent and temporary staff were offered redundancy payments, even though the workers’ awards imposed no obligation for such payments on employers. More than half the permanent staff at the works, and nearly half the seasonal staff, accepted the company’s offer. The Meat Workers’ Union called the strike, at other works, in an attempt to achieve a higher payment. It succeeded, even though the union’s full demands were not met.

As matters stand, workers at the Gear plant who accepted the company’s offer are receiving less redundancy pay than those who held out. As a precedent for any similar circumstance, this outcome is disastrous. In future, any redundancy offer is likely to be declined and a strike called to achieve a higher figure.

The situation is made more absurd because the workers who went on strike were not those who stood to gain, on this occasion, from a higher pay-out. Some of those on whose behalf the strike was called have since found other jobs and have continued working, and being paid, while colleagues at freezing works lost wages on their behalf. To staunch unionists this might look like a pleasing show of solidarity. For other unionists, the meat industry, and the. country, it was an unfortunate and expensive exercise. Over-manning was instrumental in the closing of the Gear plant. The dilemma is obvious: unions insist on maintaining scales thgt are beyond economic capabilities and technical requirements; at the same time they want — understandably — the best deal for those who lose jobs when the business collapses. Employees should not bear the whole brunt of inefficiency; nor should they want to insist on creating the inefficiency, or lack of productivity, that makes an industry so uncompetitive that

the entire labour force must be dismissed. An efficient meat industry, appropriately staffed, is possible to achieve. It could well be a much larger industry, given the right costings, and few or no jobs would be imperilled by accepting efficient manning levels.

The events in the meat industry can only heighten the sense of alarm among employers about the level of redundancy payments being sought, and the methods used to secure them, by unions throughout the country. Being laid off because no work is available is an unhappy experience for anyone. It matters much less when other work is fairly readily available. The scale of redundancy payments being won in New Zealand at. present is one cause of the level of unemployment. The Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that some employers are reluctant to take on more staff because of the high cost of dismissing staff. Others have said that employers who might otherwise stay in business, and provide jobs, are being forced into receivership by the redundancy payments they must make as they try to reduce costs.

Events in the wake of the Gear closure at Petone emphasise the need for precise and certain guidelines about the size of payments to workers who lose their jobs. Perhaps the Petone settlement will serve as a precedent if other freezing works are forced to close if new ones take their place elsewhere. If new jobs are provided, the emphasis should be on helping employees to move to the new jobs, not on making overdue adjustments so costly through redundancy that the outcome is financial catastrophe.

Finding a wholly acceptable formula for severance pay for those who lose their jobs may turn out to be impossible. Not all unions have the seasonal strength of the meat workers. Not all employers have sufficient assets to make substantial payments. No clear idea exists of what a redundancy payment is supposed to achieve. Is it a reward for service, based on the time employed with a firm? Is it a bonus intended to tide a worker over the period when he is likely to be unemployed? Or is it, as many employers must feel, a bribe to persuade workers to go away so that a company can attempt to balance its books? The settlement this week has the stock for export moving again; the wider questions about redundancy remain as far as ever from a resolution.