Union’s party link a minor issue—cleaner

Press, 10 January 1986, Page 5

Union’s party link a minor issue—cleaner

Mr Peter Oakley, the Christchurch cleaner at the centre of the union exemption row, said yesterday that the Labour Party affiliation of the Cleaners’ Union had been the least important of his objections to union membership. His main objection was to being forced by law to join the union although the Union Membership Exemption Tribunal had ruled that this objection was not a ground for exemption. .. Mr Oakley’s other objections were not dealt with by the tribunal because it had already decided to grant his exemption on the political affiliation ground. These objections were that _he would obtain no benefit from union membership; and that his rights were being determined by a group whose power came from Government recognition not the member enthusiasm for any common goal.

In its decision, the tribunal said that these objections countered “concepts which form part of the scheme of the act, and they raise novel questions of some complexity.” Mr Oakley also said it should not be necessary to pay a $lOO fee and go through a tribunal to obtain union exemption. “It’s silly to have to pay $lOO to have a conscience. Only these who have a conscience are going to apply,” he said. Mr Oakley said that after he applied for exemption in July, the union had insisted that he pay union fees until the tribunal’s decision had been given. But the Industrial Relations Amendment Act made it clear that no

fees were payable until the decision was given. Mr Oakley a part-time student at the University of Canterbury, said he had not really thought about having to belong to the University of Canterbury Students’ Association, although he had been asked about it at the tribunal hearing. It is compulsory to join the association, although in exceptional cases a refund of fees can be made.

Mr Oakley did say that he received value for money from the association, and he had no moral problems about belonging.

He also said that he did have a political affiliation, but he would not disclose it as “it was of no relevance.” Not all unions will be affected if the decision does have general application. Only about 85 unions, or about 20 per cent of the unionised work force, are affiliated to the Labour Party. Among those that are affiliated are the Engineers’ Union and the Hotel Workers’ Union.

The Union Membership Exemption Tribunal was set up by the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 1985, and came into effect on July 1.

The chairman of the tribunal is Mrs Allison Quentin-Baxter, who has been head of the Legal Division of the Foreign Affairs Department and has

taught law at Victoria University. The other two members are Mr Ivor Powell, who has held office in the Otago Trades Council; and the Rev. Angus MacLeod, a former secretary of the National Council of Churches.

The act, which ended a 16-month period of voluntary unionism, said the tribunal could grant exemption “if it is satisfied that the applicant genuinely objects on the grouns of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction, to becoming or remaining a member of any union whatsoever.”

Around 400 applications for union membership exemption had been received by the tribunal said its secretary, Mrs Pat McNamee.

She said 72 hearings had already been held in Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Nelson, and Christchurch, and 45 decisions had been reached.

Mr Oakley was the only applicant to have the political affiliation of his union mentioned as a ground for exemption in the tribunal’s decision.

Exemption has been granted in all but four of the 45 decisions which have been reached after hearings. In 31 cases strong religious beliefs have played a prominent part in winning exemption. On 21 occasions

the successful applicants were members of the Exclusive Brethren.

None of the four applications which have failed cited religious beliefs as a major ground for exemption.

Apart from religious beliefs, the most frequently cited ground for exemption was freedom of choice or opposition to being forced to join a union. While the tribunal frequently accepted that this was a deeply-held personal conviction, it also said that exemption could not be granted on this ground.

The tribunal has held that personal conviction must be an opposition to union membership itself, not merely an opposition ot the compulsory aspect of being forced to join. Successful applicants who cited this objection were all granted exemption on other grounds. About 130 hearings have yet to be held. The tribunal will probably visit Timaru, Dunedin and Invercargill, in March, and then go to other centres with a large number of hearings.

The other 200 applications will be dealt with by the chairman without a hearing. Under the Industrial Relations Amendment Act, a hearing is to be only held if the union objects to an application or if the chairman decides a hearing is necessary.