Lay-offs if ban not lifted

Press, 10 December 1983, Page 9

Lay-offs if ban not lifted

Staff may be laid off next week if unions do not lift a load-out ban imposed on Gough, Gough, and Hamer’s factory nine days ago. The manufacturing mana- ' ger, Mr R. J. Buchan, said - yesterday that the ban was having a serious effect on the Christchurch-based engineering company. Work k was running out in the fac- ? tory and as more than $1 - million work a year was subcontracted locally, other ■ Christchurch engineering businesses would eventually suffer also. This was of great concern ' to Mr I. A. Schumacher,

president of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Engineer Federation. He believed the

unions’ attitudes were difficult to understand in light of recent redundancies in the Christchurch engineering industry. The dispute stems from the company’s need to shift its factory at Ensors Road, as the site has been bought by the Christchurch City Council for the Brougham Street expressway. Mr Buchan said the company initiated discussions with the four unions concerned — the engineers, boilermakers, storemen and packers, and clerical workers’ unions. It was explained that the company wanted to find new premises in Christchurch, either at an existing factory in the city, or build a Tfew

one at the company’s site at Hornby. Continued employment was guaranteed. The unions tabled a set of claims for six months written notice of the shift, a ?500 disturbance payment, the right for workers to declare themselves voluntarily redundant up to three months after the shift, and State service mileage rates for those who had to travel further to the new factory. However, according to Mr Alan Davis, of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, the price and wage freeze regulations preclude the company from negotiating extra payments. The discussions became deadlocked, and the unions

imposed the ban. Gough, Gough, and Hamer indicated it wanted to continue discussions with the unions if they lift the ban first, but the unions will not do so until after any discussions.

Ms Linda Hoult, a Storemen and Packers’ Union organiser, said the ban was the only security workers had. If the ban was lifted and the company still refused to discuss these claims, the only alternative would be a strike, which she said was the last thing the workers wanted. Before staff could be laid off the company had to prove there was insufficient work.. Ms Hoult said union delegates and workers had

assured her there was plenty of work.

If the costs of relocating the factory in Christchurch proved too high, Mr Buchan said the company might consider moving to Auckland, but Ms Hoult dismissed this as “an idle threat.”

The unions believed the company knew where it planned to shift its factory, but would not reveal this. The unions also rejected the claim that payments could not be negotiated under the wage and price freeze. Both Ms Hoult and Mr Jim Simcott, of the Engineers’ Union, said this had been done in Christchurch pg two previous occasions. “