Marsden agreement nonsense—Court

Press, 15 October 1982, Page 6

Marsden agreement nonsense—Court

PA Wellington The Arbitration Court has directed the trade unions and management to settle their differences on the employment of overseas workers for the Marsden Point oil refinery expansion project, saying that an agreement they had reached on the subject was "nonsense." The Court was particularly critical of a clause in the project composite agreement which required the contracting consortium JV2. “to meet, discuss, and agree" with the Federation of Labour and the boilermakers' union on the need to employ or recruit overseas labour.

"There cannot be an agreement to make an agreement," the Court said, in a decision released yesterday. "If such words are given their plain meaning in an exclusive sense, the result is nonsense.”

By accepting the clause JV2 had agreed to a “limited fetter" on its right to select its employees. “But the fetter is limited. It does not in any way. nor by implied terms, grant anything like a veto to a union."

The case arose because JV2 sought to bring into New Zealand 50 boilermakers from overseas for the project. The boilermakers’ union insisted that all its members be first employed, before any non-union worker, from New Zealand or overseas.

"This requirement is wrong and illegal," the Court said, adding: "This require-

ment was destructive of the proceedings provided for in clause 21." But it also said that JV2 was not free from blame. It said the company's move in advertising for workers in the United Kingdom was “bad tactics” which led to a confrontation.

The Court said that evidence before it showed a need for the employment of 50 boilermakers now. but the boilermakers’ union had chosen not to call any evidence that there was no need to employ any from overseas.

The Court said that on this basis, it could have told JV2 that it was free to recruit the 50 boilermakers it needed.

“If we made such an order on the evidence before us, the boilermakers’ union would have only itself to blame for the consequences. “That is the result of its not calling evidence and of its rigid stance of preference for existing members." But the Court said it had decided against this, holding that its interpretation on the controversial clause should be first pursued by the parties.

“it is therefore a matter of importance and urgency that there be a further discussion between the parties on the 50 boilermakers in the light of this decision.”

If agreement was not reached promptly, the matter should be referred to a disputes committee. If there

was still failure to achieve a result, the Court would hear the matter urgently and “deal with it solely on the evidence produced at that hearing." The decision came after a week-long hearing in September before Chief Judge Horn. Mr P. L. Oldham (employers’ representative), and Mr J. A. Boomer (employees' representative). The Court said it would if necessary put other matters aside so"that Marsden Point disputes could be dealt with promptly. The Court found that an employer had a right not to engage a worker with a militant background, but it was an insufficient reason for an employer to reject a qualified worker’s application merely because he had worked on a project affected by undue disruption. The Court said the intransigence of the boilermakers’ union—which required every financial member to be given a job upon receipt of application by JV2—had been obvious in correspondence and negotiations preceding the hearing. But the consortium was criticised as well for beginning the overseas advertising recruiting process without prior consultation with the F.O.L. and combined union group. “It led to a confrontation. That confrontation was rendered completely impossible of resolution by the attitude of the boilermarkers' union