Parties must settle issue of recruitment

Press, 15 October 1982, Page 7

Parties must settle issue of recruitment

PA Wellington The Arbitration Court has thrown back at the unions and management the question of the recruitment of overseas labour, including 50 boilermakers, for the Marsden Point Oil Refinerv expansion project. In a decision released yesterday after a five-day hearing late in September on hiring for the expansion work, the Court said it was important and urgent that the parties should discuss further the recruitment of the 50 British boilermakers. It ordered that if a decision was not reached prompt then equally promptly the question must be referred to a dispute committee. If there were still a failure to reach a result, the Court itself would hear the matter urgently and decide the issue on the evidence produced at that hearing.

In its decision yesterday the Court strongly 'criticised the attitude of the Boilermakers’ Union throughout the dispute, with reference to its failure to give evidence at the September hearing. It also held that the joint venture contracting consortium. JV2. was not free of blame.

At the September hearing the Court was asked to rule on the intent and interpretation of clause 21, which is related to the hiring and training of labour, in the collective site agreement at Marsden Point.

The Court pointed to a change of stance by the Boilermakers’ Union at the September hearing. "At the hearing it was conceded by all parties including the counsel for the Boilermakers’ Union, that a requirement that members of that union be employed as a preference could not stand. “Durirfg the negotiations and correspondence, however, that boilermakers’ attitude was adamant and was not abandoned until the hearing." the court said. It was said that the boilermakers’ attitude was merely a negotiating stance. The Court did not accept that.

"The evidence showed beyond any question that the Boilermakers’ Union was

firmly determined that all its ’ members be engaged before any non-member was engaged. and particularly before any overseas worker was brought into the country. That attitude was destructive " to the proceedings provided " for in clause 21." the Court said. .. • On the question of alleged victimisation by JV2 the Court said a worker seeking employment may not be suitable in the employer’s eyes - for a number of reasons.’ He could not be refused ■ employment. however, merely because he had worked on other projects ■ where there had been some distruption attributed to boilermakers. But if a worker had capri- ’ ciously disturbed the progress of a construction or had failed to abide by the ■ terms of the award or agree- ' ment covering it, where the employers knew about it he was entitled to say such a ■ ■■ worker was a risk he should not be obliged to undertake. ' Regarding the disclaimer at the hearing that the ’ boilermakers intended to continue their earlier stance, the Court said: "We did not hear evidence from any official of the Boilermakers' • Union. We view the stated position of the union with reserve." It was bad tactics for JV2 to advertise in the United Kingdom without prior consultation with the unions or the Federation of Labour. •; That led to confrontation. Complete and adequate advertising coverage, particularly for boilermakers, had not been achieved inside New Zealand. "Our perusal of the advertising by JV2 indicates that ‘ the New Zealand field may not yet have been fully explored by it. That has not assisted in diminishing the' ' present nastiness,” the Court said.

It was clear from the evidence- that there was a time factor on the completion of the project.

"If that time is unduly extended by industrial action. or other causes, then the cost to the country could be enormous. Public interest is involved."’ the Court said.