Clerical union ‘unconvinced’ of promised benefits

Press, 1 November 1983, Page 14

Clerical union ‘unconvinced’ of promised benefits

PA Wellington The Clerical Workers’ Union is “unimpressed and unconvinced” by claims that the implementation of voluntary unionism will promote freedom. The union told the Parliamentary select committee studying the Industrial Law Reform Bill that clerical workers had more to lose than gain from the controversial legislation.

“The benefits it will remove from workers will more than cancel out any alleged benefits they may receive,” said the union’s secretary, Mr John Slater. The union provided members with extensive benefits and services which could only be financed on a collective basis, he said.

“If everyone benefits from a service, everyone should share the costs.” The bill was bad law and should be withdrawn, he said.

“So long as awards and agreements are made by collective bargaining, unions of employees are an essential part of the fabric of industrial relations,” he said.

“If unions remain the only way by which an award can be negotiated and if the terms of an award cover all

workers, it is clear that’ workers will not take kindly to free-loaders,” Mr Slater said. “If the user benefits, then the user pays.” The effect of enforced voluntary unionism would be a reduction in services to workers who would be left without support or representation in a very tight marketplace, and their wages and conditions would suffer, the union said. The clerical workers also opposed the introduction of youth rates, which is. provided for in all awards in the legislation. The principle of equal pay for equal work should apply to all people, the union said. The union also disputed the Government’s claim that youth rates would help reduce unemployment. There was no evidence to show that youth rates would create jobs, it said. “There were nearly 9000 clerical workers registered as unemployed at March 31, 1983, despite the fact that very low youth rates are payable under the Clerical Workers Award,” Mr Slater said. Youth rates would lead to abuse by employers giving preference to younger, cheaper workers at the expense cf those on adult rates.

The union opposed provisions in the bill which allowed non-union workers the same use of disputes or rights and personal grievances procedures as union workers. In doing so, the law would be giving unfair advantage to nonunionists, it said. “They would be using procedures set up under an award negotiated by a union to which they did not contribute and they could get interpretations of the award, which might adversely affect all workers, without the knowledge or consent of the union which had negotiated it,” the union said. “This outrages all the principles of fair play and would do little to promote industrial harmony.” The Bank Officers’ Union also opposed, the voluntary membership ‘provisions of the bill.

The union’s secretary, Mr Bill Aimer, said it was being promoted on the principle of the freedom to join or not to join organisations. That principle was being applied selectively to trade unions, however, with the Government having shown no effective intent to legislate in a similar way for professional associations, he

said. “The bill does not propose to amend the Industrial Relations Act to provide people with the freedom to choose which union they will belong to,” he said. “Everybody must join the union whose rules provide coverage for the work concerned.” The principle of freedom was being applied in isolation and without being balanced by reference to other principles which might be of equal or greater importance, the bank officers said. The union said inquiries showed that there was no widespread support among its members for voluntary unionism. The majority supported the present position. Labour Department-su-pervised ballots had endorsed the compulsory membership preference of the union. The legislation gave every worker who resigned from his or her union direct access to the Arbitration Court in pursuit of a dispute or grievance with the employers, the union told the select committee. “From the viewpoint of employers, this must be the most terrifying part of the bill, while from a union viewpoint it is simply comi-

cal, although it is also patently childish,” Mr Aimer said. It showed that the architects of the legislation had no comprehension of the basis of industrial relations in New Zealand. “It is a proposition which is totally impractical unless the resources of the Arbitration Court are to be quadrupled,” he said. The chairman of the select committee set up to consider the Industrial Law Reform Bill, Mr C. B. Townshend, said after the sitting on October 28 that all submissions now received would be accepted and considered. The original three-week deadline for submissions, sei five weeks ago, was the subject of widespread criticism. Mr Townshend said 20 submissions had so far been heard by the committee and a further 70 were due for hearing over the next four weeks. Parliamentary approval had been given for the select committee to take the unusual step of travelling to Auckland and Christchurch for the hearing of evidence. It was the intention of the committee to hear groups with common interest together, he said.