Labour rejects move on union choice

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 1

Labour rejects move on union choice

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

The Labour Party conference yesterday declared unanimous opposition to any moves that would make unions compete against one another for members.

Indications are, however, that the Government still intends to introduce reforms in its Green Paper review which will give workers some choice as to which union they join.

How this is to be achieved remains uncertain but it seems the opportunity will be provided through new rules to make the trade union movement more democratic.

The unions, aware that contestable union membership was on the reform agenda, went into the industrial relations debate determined to bury the proposal by getting the conference to follow the caucus and the party’s national council in rejecting it. They got that rejecton and most unionists left, feeling the threat was now behind them.

They might have been less happy had they caught the ambiguity in an opening announcement by the Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger.

He said the caucus had rejected the concept of contestability but that it had also recognised that some unions did not serve their memberships as well as they should and had asked the working party to further investigate “democratisation proce-

dures.” On the face of it, these might be limited to such measures as tightening up balloting provisions and requiring that union officials be elected rather than appointed. . It seems, however, that they will go further. Certainly Mr Rodger was unable later to give a specific assurance that no element of competition would be introduced in the policy decisions to emerge from the review. Also the party president, Ms Margaret Wilson, seemed to think the issue far from dead when she said there would be difficulties should the voice of the conference be ignored. The affiliates council issued the same warning in its report to open the debate, saying it expected the resolutions passed “to become the framework within which the Government constructs its legislation.” The reference was to an umbrella remit key clauses of which supported the retention of the national award system as the central method of wage-fixing and declared strong opposition to “contestability of union coverage.”

This was carried without dissent — a unanimity probably helped by strong

support from Ms Fran Wilde as chairwoman of the caucus committee on industrial relations. She said advocates of contestable unionism argued it would promote union democracy but that she had yet to hear any argument that convinced her that pitting union against union would enhance the interests of workers.

Mr Fred Gerbic, chairman of the Parliamentary select committee on labour and education, was equally condemnatory, saying the option put to the caucus had been that 10 workers could initiate a move to switch unions and that 100 workers could ballot on the proposal. If they voted to change their union affiliation, the receiving union would then have to take a vote on receiving them. “Well, that is crazy. It would never have worked and for that reason it is fundamentally dishonest,” he said. He also said the cause was being promoted by the Employers’ Federation, the Business Roundtable, and the National Party and that their hidden motive was to reintroduce voluntary unionism by the back door.

The tenor of his comments and Ms Wilde’s

seemed, however, to conflict with a statement later by the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, which suggested that the caucus had not so much opposed the concept as the formula.

Mr Lange said it had rejected “contestability provisions with arbitrary numbers in them so it was back in the melting pot.”

Still, if the unions have a way to go in winning the battle, they also have a number of well placed allies in the Government to speak for them when the „ final decisions are taken.

The main union arguments advanced in yesterday’s debate against giving workers a choice of union were that it would lead to more demarcation disputes, that it would encourage the kind of standover tactics seen in the United States, and that it would lead to the formation of “bosses’ unions."

Only two members of the Government spoke yesterday for radical reform, the Minister of Transport, Mr Prebble and the Under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Butcher. Both warned that the unions could not continue to rely on legal protections because if National got into power these

would be ripped away.

Mr Prebble also hinted that the minimum membership requirement would be raised, saying there were “too many unions in this country.” The comment would tend to confirm speculation that a new minimum of 1000 will be set — a reform that would put 153 unions out of business including the Cooks and Stewards’ Union and the Pulp and Paper Workers’ Federation — the union behind the Kawerau dispute.

The increased size limit is, however, expected to be accompanied by the removal of present restrictions on union amalgamation.

Further reports, page 2