Wage-fixing bill introduced

Press, 9 November 1984, Page 6

Wage-fixing bill introduced

By PATRICIA HERBERT in Wellington

The wage-fixing reform bill on which the December 1 and subsequent award rounds will be based was introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger, yesterday. The Opposition, as Sromised, did not obstruct le progress of the legislation but said that it lacked any power to limit wage settlements.

Mr Rodger said that the measure represented the culmination of two years effort by Government representatives, unions, and employers. Central to it was an agreement that relativities between awards should not be the only basis for wage movements. Instead, unions and employers should be able to negotiate claims based on work-specific factors such as the introduction of new technology or increases in productivity.

“It was felt that this aim might be assisted by writing criteria for the Arbitration Court to adjudicate on disputes that are sent to it for settlement,” he said.

Mr Rodger also said that the Employers’ Federation, the Federation of Labour, and the Combined State Unions had been consulted on the drafting of the bill and that a substantial measure of agreement had been peached on the detail.

However, on two issues the parties had been unable to agree and on those the Government had taken its own decision, he said.

The first related to disputes procedures for composite agreements. The Employers’ Federation had wanted work stoppages outlawed but the Government believed it more in keeping with the principle of free negotiation that the parties establish their own ground rules.

The second concerned whether unresolved matters should be referred to the Arbitration Court for resolution only if both the union and employer agreed. The provision had been included but against opposition from the F.O'L., said Mr Rodger. Important measures in the bill are:

An obligation on the Minister of Labour in consultation with the Minister of Finance to arrange an annual tripartite wage conference chaired by a Cabinet member and attended by persons nominated by the Employers’ Federation, the F.0.L., and the Combined State Unions.

The parties will discuss the economic environment in which wages will be settled, including past trends and likely developments in inflation, the distribution of income, and the competitiveness of New Zealand industry the

implications of the Government’s monetary and fiscal policies or employment. They will also consider the interests of the low-paid, the “Social Wage” and the minimum wage.

An integral part of the consultative process is that it be based on a full and frank exchange of information. The bill, therefore, imposes on the Government an obligation to brief the parties on the state of the economy.

The conference, which is to last no more than 90 days, may set guidelines for the round. These will not represent an absolute limit but will be treated only as a guide. Clause II requires that any award registered with the Arbitration. Court have attached to it a memorandum stating reasons for increases in wages or conditions on the following criteria:. demand for skills, changes in job content and responsibility, increased productivity arising for example from the introduction of new technology, the need for fairness in rates of pay and work conditions within an award and relativities.

The purpose of this is to fence in settlements so that they do not flow through the system. Provision is made for the appointment of temporary, nominated members of the Arbitration Court to serve

for no more than two years or, if over 70, for no more than 12 months. This power may be used at any time and Mr Rodger said that the Government planned to use it early next year to allow the Court .to cope with a long-term back log of work.

The role of the Arbitration Court is strengthened so that it may hear disputes of interest on voluntary settlements if both parties agree. Its determination on issues so referred will be treated as if part of the voluntary settlement. As part of the move towards collective bargaining, the Court may register a composite agreement but only if provision is made for the setting up of effective machinery to deal with disputes and personal grievances.

Composite agreements will then prevail over awards but unions may withdraw from them when they expire, and after giving the employer seven days notice in writing. Clause 14 provides a radical change of procedure for the settlement of disputes. Two options are available to the parties. The first is that they agree to allow the conciliator to refer the matter to the Arbitration Court for reseolution. The second, which arises if the first falls through, is the adjournment of proceedings by the conciliator who will then report

to the Court. Once this has been done, neither party may withdraw. Under both options, the Court will call the parties to a meeting to determine the most appropriate method of resdlving the dispute and either refer it to a mediator or refer it back to the conciliation council or consult the Employers’ Federation or the F.O.L. for assistance in reaching a settlement or, if both parties agree, arbitrate and make an award.

Speaking of these provisions, Mr Rodger said that in the past if negotiations broke down, the applicant, party, usually the union, had been able to withdraw its claims or refer them to the Arbitration Court for settlement.

In the future, however, the agreement of both parties would be needed before this step was taken and, if this proved impossible, the proceedings would be adjourned pending an informal hearing in the Court which would then explore the several avenues available for solving the dispute. If these procedures failed, it would be deemed to be withdrawn.

“The object behind these changes is to keep the dispute as far as possible within the conciliation and arbitration system,” Mr Rodger said. 4