Employers annoyed over dole payment

Press, 10 January 1986, Page 1

Employers annoyed over dole payment

The decision to pay the unemployment benefit to Canterbury rubber workers amounted to the Government funding a strike, said a Canterbury Employers’ Association advocate, Mr Neil McPhail, yesterday.

After seven weeks without work, because of an industrial dispute, the workers were given approval by the Social Welfare Department yesterday to collect the benefit The decision was announced by the Social Security Commission.

The dispute dates back to November 21, when about 650 rubber workers went on strike after a breakdown in their award talks. They then received lock-out notices from their employers on December 10. These effectively deprived the workers of pay for statutory holidays. “As an employers’ representative I’m pretty much horrified at the decision,” said Mr McPhail. “The workers voted to strike in-

definitely at the beginning of the strike and this was never rescinded, so they are still in fact on strike.” Mr McPhail said the employers’ decision to lock the workers out came on top of the strike vote and made no legal difference to the strike decision.

“It’s a very grave decision from the point of view of any employer. It amounts to the Government funding a strike.”

Mr McPhail met union representatives yesterday for informal discussions, and will meet the employers today. “We will generally discuss our position in the dispute,” he said. The benefit payments are really a side issue and we have no plans to act on the commission’s decision.”

The secretary of the Canterbury Rubber Workers’ Union, Mr Roger Brott, said yesterday that he saw no reason Why the Social Welfare Department would not provide back-dated benefit

to workers as far as the lock-out on December 10. As the commission had ruled, after December 10 the workers could not be considered to have been on strike, he said. Mr Brott said that the main issues of the dispute were the award round, above-award payments and statutory holiday pay during the strike. By law the workers were not entitled to this statutory pay but employers were morally obliged to pay it, he said. “The union feels that the employers have made absolutely no endeavour to effect a settlement other than to attempt to use the proceedings to enforce their own terms as far as incentive work is concerned,”. Mr Brott said. “The employers are attempting to modify a position that workers have retained for the last 15 years in relation to award wages.” The union would like the Canterbury Employers’

Association to show that it was willing to take part in informal negotiations to settle the dispute and return to production, Mr Brott said. “I have told the employers’ advocate today, Mr McPhail, what the issues of the dispute are and suggested that he indicate to us that informal discussions can take place. Since the Government has already expressed its reluctance to intervene in the dispute I would doubt that any compulsory conference would be called,” said Mr Brott. “There is another problem to be resolved involving boilerhouse staff locked out at Firestone’s Papanui factory. There are signs that this dispute might spread to include engine drivers at Skellerup Industries.” If members of the Stationary Engine Drivers’ Union did not resolve their dispute and return to work there would be no steam produced in each affected factory to resume rubber production, Mr Brott .said.