Company ‘welched’ on deal

Press, 9 November 1984, Page 4

Company ‘welched’ on deal

The managing director of Waitaki N.Z.R.,.Mr R. A. Hutton, had initiated moves for greater co-operation and consensus between the company and the Meat Workers’ Union, but had then “welched” on the agreement which was subsequently drawn up, it was alleged in the District Court yesterday. The allegation was made in evidence and counsel’s submissions in a case brought by the Labour Department against the Meat Workers’ Union. The department alleges that the union failed to give three days notice of a strike when more than 600 workers at the Waitaki company’s Islington works struck on Mhy 2 as part of 24-hour rolling stoppages at various freezing works, to show dissatisfaction with the wage-freeze.

Evidence was that an agreement was initiated while parties involved were attending the Economic Summit Conference in Wellington in mld-September, and that the Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger, chaired the meeting in his office.

After the completion of

evidence yesterday in the two-day hearing, Judge Cadenhead, in a preliminary finding, indicated that the agreement of September 13, its implementation by the union, and a letter from the company to the solicitor for the plaintiff on November 6, “represent a position which would make it unfair or unjust for the plaintiff, on the merits, to succeed in this claim.”

The Judge said that whether this was so in strict law would await representations from counsel in writ-

ing. He then adjourned the case for written submissions ‘ to be made by defence counsel, Mr B. McClelland, Q.C., and replied to by Mr G. K. Panckhurst, for the plaintiff. The department inspector of awards, Ronald Arthur Andrew, is named as plaintiff in the proceedings and the New Zealand Meat Workers’ Union is the defendant.

Mr McClelland appears with Mr S. L. Kaminski, for the union:

The plaintiff claims judgment to recover the penalty of $3OOO provided in the Industrial Relations Act for

a breach of the relevant section and costs. In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that, before the strike, neither the workers nor the union had given notice, of their intention to strike, and that the union had instigated the breach of the act. The defendant denied these claims and also sought to have the plaintiff debarred from continuing the proceedings. The statement of defence said that in or about September, in Wellington, the plaintiff (represented by the Minister of Labour), the defendant union, and the Waitaki company held meetings relating to the proceedings. It was agreed between the parties that if the national management committee of the union passed a certain resolution the plaintiff would discontinue the court proceedings. The resolution was passed on September 18 and the plaintiff and Waitaki company were duly advised, according to the statement of defence.

During evidence yesterday the Court heard that the

union’s resolution arising from the talks in Wellington was that the union would undertake to uphold the provisions of the killing agreement, in view of the Waitaki company’s promise to withdraw court proceedings against the union branches at its various works.

In other preliminary findings in the case yesterday the Judge held that the strike at the works on May 2 was “prima facie unauthorised’ and appeared to continue provisions of Section 125 A of the Industrial Relations Act, in that three days written notice of the planned strike was not given to the employer. A full day’s work was lost, but, apart from inconvenience, it did not appear to be conclusively proved that any stock had died, or that the stoppage resulted in significant loss in the farming sector. In evidence Mr Andrew said that neither he as plaintiff in the present proceedings, nor any of his superiors in the Labour Department, had been advised of the Waitaki company’s desire to withdraw its complaint against the union. Mr McClelland submitted

at the opening of the defence case that the matter was one between the union and the eompany. The company had chosen to have the Labour Department bring the proceedings on its behalf, and then chose not to honour a settlement that was arrived at

Wesley Raymond Cameron, secretary of the Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson and Westland branch of the union, and a member of the national management committee, traversed events leading to the discussions in Wellington, and eventual union resolution. He said that Mr Hutton had suggested to him that more regular discussions should be held between the company and meat workers to avoid confrontation that led to disruptions in the industry. Mr Cameron said he suggested to Mr Hutton that, to clear the way for discussion, consensus, and co-operation, the prosecutions which were pending by the company against the union, would need to be withdrawn. Mr Cameron said he learned a fortnight ago that the proceedings were still pending.