THE PRESS TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1984. Reactions to meat stoppages

Press, 1 May 1984, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1984. Reactions to meat stoppages

The New Zealand Meat Workers’ Union has embarked on a campaign of rolling stoppages that seems certain to accomplish little more than a loss of income for its members. The union’s secretary, Mr A. J. Kennedy, is drawing marbles from a hat each day to determine which branch of the union shall go on strike for 24 hours. Yesterday, the first day of the campaign, eight slaughterhouses in Otago and Southland were made idle and 120,000 head of stock were left in the yards. The same marble could be drawn again this morning; or it might be the turn of some other branch to take the day off. The union has turned the livelihood of its members into a lottery. Unfortunately for the freezing workers, their union does not hold the winning tickets. The union’s reason for the stoppages is the refusal of the works employers to support an approach to the Government for a resumption of free wage-bargaining. The stoppages are part of a wider strategy mapped out by the Federation of Labour to try to break the freeze on incomes, and are no doubt timed to put some steel into the federation’s conference this month. The Meat Workers’ Union, however, seeks publicly to justify its action on the ground of a lack of co-operation from the Freezing Companies’ Association. The attempt to push the association into compliance is most unlikely to persuade it to change its policy. This has been clearly stated: the association will not be a party to any pressure for negotiations on wage-related issues and considers the $B-a-week rise allowed by the Government to be the last word on wages. Even if the union were able to force agreement from the Freezing Companies’ Association, it would not bring higher wages for its members any nearer. The Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, speaks plainly when he calls the stoppages a nonsense. The Government will not — and, indeed, cannot — entertain applications for exemptions from the freeze regulations while industrial action is threatened or in progress. So long as the union goes on holding the stoppages, it prevents any consideration of the merits of its case by the Government. If the union can substantiate its claim that changing conditions in the industry have made award negotiations necessary, and if it can persuade the Government of this, the Cabinet can grant an exemption from the freeze regulations. This has been done for other workers in other industries when new work or changed circumstances of employment have been demonstrated. The union debars itself from any such consideration by its campaign of stoppages. The random selection each day of targets for the stoppages means that the union does not

give the statutory advance notice of industrial action required of it by the Industrial Relations Act. The union could face legal action as a result; it might also face the prospect of the freezing companies refusing to put stock up for slaughter. The Freezing Companies’ Association will meet tomorrow to consider its response and this is one course of action that will be considered. The prevention of distress in stock would be a sufficient reason in itself for what would amount to a lockout. The wildcat game of hazard that the union chooses to play means that stock could be left in freezing works’ yards for days. The Government is waiting for the freezing companies to respond before taking a hand in the issue itself. The importance of the freeze on incomes to the whole of the Government’s economic policy means that the Government will have to be rigorous in preserving the integrity of the freeze. This would not preclude entertaining an application for exemption. Nevertheless, a tough line from the freezing companies and from the Government should not surprise the union. Before it bought a fight with its employers and with the Government, the union presumably made some calculation of the pros and cons of industrial action. It will have been under no illusion about the response it was likely to draw from these quarters. The union might find itself under attack on another front, and in a way that dissipates the pressure it hopes to put on its employers and the Government. The acting president of Federated Farmers, Mr P. H. Elworthy, has warned that his organisation would consider asking its members to withhold stock from slaughter. This would close every freezing works in the country and leave the freezing workers without work and without a cause.

The threat is no idle one. The president of Otago Federated Farmers, Mr J. M. Rose, spoke for a substantial and growing body of opinion among farmers when he said yesterday that it was time for the Meat Workers’ Union “to have its wings clipped.” High processing charges in the freezing industry are a constant source of farmers’ complaints and, rightly or wrongly, many farmers identify these charges with union agitation for high wages. In Otago and Southland a significant number of this season’s lambs remain to be killed; but throughout the country the lamb kill is tailing off. Feed supplies are good throughout the country and holding on to stock would not be an embarrassment for most farmers. If the farmers decide that this is their best opportunity to make their point at least cost to themselves, the union might regret the decision to play the marbles game.