Seizure of business

Press, 11 February 1983, Page 14

Seizure of business

Sir,—The action regarding Luigi’s Pizza is perhaps the most outrageous piece of legal activity we have yet seen in this country, and should send shivers down the spine of every business operator. The pertinent facts regarding the case are these. Mr Hyndman has indeed broken a law, there is no doubting this. However, the fact that something is law does not make it right. For instance, Parliament could pass a law making it compulsory for every child born to be christened, and persons refusing to comply would be breaking the law, but would they really be doing anything wrong or unethical? So, does Mr Hyndman deserve to lose financial control of his own business for heeding the wishes of his employees and sticking by his own principles? Absolutely not. — Yours, etc., JOHN ERICSON. February 9, 1983.

Sir,—So the unions hae finally shown their colours as to what they really think of job opportunities for workers. The sequestration order sought by them against' Quality Pizzas (Luigi’s) had nothing to do with better working conditions, increased job opportunities or

the like. The only thing that the union appears to be interested in is increasing its membership through whatever means. This is regardless of whether people want to join or not, but simply so they can have more power to force their beliefs and ideas more on to workers and employers alike. It is high time that we dump this outdated and completely alien concept of compulsory unionism and start upholding the individual's freedom rights. — Yours, etc..

G. N. RUSSELL. February 9, 1983.

Sir,—Congratulations to Mr Ray Hyndman for taking a stand against the unions. The rightness of his action surely is demonstrated by the stance that the union has taken. What has happened to this country when someone is allowed the legal right to walk into a man's business and seize it. I think we should be taking a good look at the law of this country to see if it is there for the common good, allowing maximum protection of individual freedom, property and rights, or if it is a law not protecting individual freedom, rights and propertv. — Yours, etc., MISS AUDREY MULLAY. February 9, 1983.

Sir,- I find myself reeling from your front page article concerning the seizure of the Luigi's Pizza business. It would appear that while much of Europe and the United States are seeing the folly of compulsory unionism, New Zealand is sinking more deeply into it. A decision by the European High Court ruled that an individual's freedom of association includes his freedom to not associate and this thereby made compulsory unionism illegal. The situation should be no different in New Zealand. The fact that our Parliament and law courts are not only prepared to sanction compulsory unionism but are also prepared to support it to the extent of seizing someone's business reveals a major threat to freedom in New Zealand unless resisted. The process of enacting the never-before-used law to seize the Luigi’s business will set a disastrous precedent for the future. We must take a stand now. — Yours, etc., D. LEWIS. February 9, 1983.

[The above is a selection from many letters received on this subject, all containing the same general view and some using very similar wording. A number of letters were disqualified because they did not meet our rules on pen-names and length, others were suspected to have been signed with fictitious names or to have contained wrong addresses, and others, after checks were made, were in contempt of court or defamatory. — Editor.]