Resignation from F.O.L. came from frustration

Press, 26 August 1986, Page 10

Resignation from F.O.L. came from frustration

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

Frustration with Federation of Labour leadership was yesterday said by Mr Rob Campbell to have prompted his resignation from the F.O.L. national executive.

Mr Campbell, secretary of the Distribution Woerks’ Federation, was forced into making a public explanation of his decision after a confidential internal memorandum to members of his union his leaked to the news media. In the memo, he described the F.O.L. leadership as intolerable, and criticised it for failing to adapt io the new economic and political environment created by the Government and for the “incompetent” manner in which it had sought an incomes agreement for this year’s wage round.

He was also critical of the executive’s lack of commitment to the proposed Council of Trade Unions — an organisation incorporating State and private-sector unions. Mr Campbell has always been a strong propoent of the C.T.U. as have the vice-president of the F.0.L., Ms Sonja Davies, ana secretary, Mr Ken Douglas. The president, Mr Jim Knox, is, however, known to be less than enthusiatic about the concept, and two other executive members, Mr Sam Jennings, of the Waterside Workers’ Union, and Mr Dave Morgan, of the Seamen’s Union, have expressed bitter opposition. In a press statement yesterday, Mr Campbell said his differences with the F.O.L. ranged across “a number of issues of

policy, tactics and presentation” and indicated that these differences focused on the union response to the new economy.

“The real world in which unions operate has changed, and we have to deal with the reality not the way wish things were,” he said.

"The best interests of the sort of modern, out-ward-looking union organisation which workers deserve are, in my view, being harmed by the present leadership style. “I was making no impact in changing that situation. It may even be that the majority of unions do not want such change. I think that is a shame, but I am not a seat warmer or a timeserver who is prepared to pretend that everything is going well ... to curry favour.”

Mr Campbell identified the structural reform of the trade union movement, its relationship with the Government, the public presentation of union positions, and the attitude taken toward the process of economic change as key areas of dispute between himself and the F.O.L.

“My own role is far less important than progressive resolvement of those issues.” he said.

A more complete exposition of Mr Campbell’s stand is in the speech he made in the Massey Winter Lecture Series, where he said traditional union policy, emphasising industry protection and State control over investment, predicated a planned economy.

“The important thing to understand about this is that it was a total package,” he said. “When some parts of the struc-

ture have been taken away, others are if not under threat at least under severe pressure to change.” In these cicumstance, he said, a simple reiteration of old policies would hardly do and the progressive forces in the union movement accepted the need to adapt and even to accept “substantial parts of the reform processes.” Mr Campbell warned, however, that this accommodation did not extend to the dis mantling of the national award system or of union rights to represent their members, a position on which he is in accord with the F.O.L.

Mr Campbell last year owned to being interested in a leadership role in the C.T.U. but his resgination, and the publicity accompanying it, will have seriously damaged his chances.

This has led to speculation that he may have since switched his attention to the Labour Party presidency although he said yesterday that he did not have “political ambitions.”

The general expectation is that he will continue to show a high profile and that he will be in the field to succeed Ms Margaret Wilson as party president when she retires.