Membership rule to slash number of trade unions

Press, 30 September 1986, Page 1

Membership rule to slash number of trade unions

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

A little more than one in three unions have the numbers to survive the industrial relations shake-up announced in the Government’s White Paper yesterday.

The most dramatic of the policy decisions is the proposal to raise the minimum union membership requirement to 1000. According to official figures, that will put 153 of New Zealand’s 233 unions out of business, including the Cooks and Stewards’ Union and Actors Equity.

They will have their registration cancelled one year after the rule becomes law' unless they can recruit new members or unless they amalgamate with another union.

The Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger, described the package as radical and he hoped to have legislation before Parliament this year for passage next year.

The reform proposals developed out of the questions raised in the Green Paper, released last December, and out of the response to it.

Almost 200 submissions were made but few agreed on what changes should be made although agreeing substantial change was necessary. Mr Rodger said the

difference of opinion had been sharpest between unions and employers but also occurred within those groups. Given this lack of consensus, he said, the reponsibility had shifted squarely to the Government.

There the task fell to a working party comprising Mr Rodger, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, an associate Minister of Finance, Mr Prebble, Messrs Eddie Isbey and Fred Gerbic and Ms Fran Wilde. Their recommendations were accepted by the Cabinet last Monday for referral to the caucus on Thursday where they were reportedly presented in summary. That may explain why a provision allowing workers on a simple majority vote to either set up a new union or switch unions was approved. It amounts to “contestability” — a concept the caucus had earlier rejected and which the Labour Party conference rejected only last month. Then the proposal was

that 10 workers could initiate a move to change unions and could transfer only if another 90 workers voted to go with them and only if the receiving union agreed to accept them. The rationale was that worker-choice in union membership was the ultimate sanction in union democracy. The argument against it was that it would encourage “body snatching” and demarcation disputes as unions competed with each other for members. Yet the new formula seems to encourage this more than the now abandoned one as it requires that the ballot must be initiated not by the workers but by the union which stands to get them. The president of the Labour Party, Ms Margaret Wilson, expressed concern about this point yesterday saying that, while she thought the revised proposal an improvement on the initial one, it might lead to interunion competition and poaching. Another source said, however, that the difference between the two proposals was mostly in their presentation and that taking the right to order a vote of the workers and giving it to the union made it appear more “controllable.” That, he said, was “the

concession.” The main thrust of yesterday’s policy statement is to develop fewer, more effective unions: accountable to their members and able to negotiate wage agreements which stick and which are relevant to the industries in which they apply.

National awards are to be retained but workers covered by secondary agreements, except composite bargaining, will be dislodged by award coverage. "

Effectively, this will establish a parallel system instead of the two-tier system which now prevails — the ideal being to provide predictability and to protect the employer from being hit twice in a wage round. When the union lodges its claims, it will be required to nominate those employers with whom it intends to negotiate separate documents at which stage both the workers and companies concerned will cease to be party to the award.

Equally, if fresh claims are lodged within the term of the document and without prior notice the employer may seek an exemption. Excluded groups may be brought back within the fold at some later date but only with the

consent of both parties. The concern of the unions has been that the industrially strong worksites tend to have house agreements and that their negotiating Strength will suffer if those workers are removed from the award structure with the effect that the quality of award protection must steadily diminish. There is scope, however, to ensure that award negotiations remain relevant to all members through the insertion of a "pass on” clause linking the movement in other agreements to the movement in awards. Ms Wilson believes this contains an essential inconsistency; that while it is designed to produce greater flexibility in settlements it may, through the “pass on” mechanism, result in greater rigidity. She is also concerned that unions may have to double or even treble their fees because provisions in the package wil expose both them and the employer to fresh expenses. Among these are:

@ That they bear the cost of wage negotiations — and these can be considerable, as they include the travel and accommodation costs of assessors. © That they be responsible for enforcing the terms of agreements and awards, a task that will be assisted by guaranteeing unions the right to inspect wages and time records and to take action in the event of a breach. Ms Wilson described this as a mixed blessing, saying it could mean a significant outlay in legal costs.

Although one of the Government’s first actions in office was to restore compulsory unionism not even this has escaped the reformist drive and it is now promising a return to the membership system which applied from 1961 to 1976.

Again the insertion of an unqualified preference clause in awards will be the subject of union-em-ployer negotiation with the proviso that, if they cannot agree, the matter be decided by secret ballot of the workers.

Under the present law, these ballots can be taken only at three-yearly intervals, a provision that will be retained and will pre-

vent employers raising the issue every year. Otherwise, Mr Rodger said, "there could be harassment.” The main difference between the two regimes is that in the existing one the decision is taken on a union basis while in future it will be awardbased. This may mean, as Mr Rodger conceded yesterday, that unions may be “partly voluntary, partly compulsory.” He has always insisted that institutional reform will achieve nothing unless it is accompanied by moves to improve the performance of the parties — a preoccupation the White Paper reflects with its emphasis on making the union movement stronger and more democratic. Moves to make the unions more accountable to their members are: © That all officials with the power to vote on union business must be elected and must hold their positions for no more than five years without going back to the membership. © That any union member may stand for office.

@ That secret ballots be required before any changes are made to

union rules and that each person eligible to vote be given 10 days notice in writing of when the vote is to be taken, and the subject. Moves to strengthen them are: • The lifting of all barriers to union amalgamation. • The opening of unions to outworkers, and to the unemployed, so that they may join the union they would be covered by if working. • The removal of legal restrictions on union activity giving unions the same freedoms and constraints as apply to companies so that they can engage in any legal activity provided it conforms to their own “objects” rule. ® The removal of the Minister’s power to deregister a union. He retains, however, the power to cancel an award. @ The extension of the definition of a “worker” to include outworkers, children (newspaper boys and girls, for example) and workers in charitable institutions but only if they are paid, not volunteer labour. © Making the scope of union-employer negotiations itself negotiable.

This would open the way for union input into decisions on the introduction of new technology, the provision of child care facilities and company superannuation schemes. On the structural side, the paper proposes the replacement of the Arbitration Court with an Arbitration Commission and a Labour Court, the first having jurisdiction over wage-fixing issues and the second, over disputes of law or right.

The commission will consist of a chief commissioner and two other commissioners — all three appointed by the Gover-nor-General on the recommendation of the Government and chosen more for their industrial than their legal expertise. They will be assisted by lay representatives chosen on a case basis from a panel nominated by the central union and employer organisations.

The Labour Court will be presided over by a judge and will have branches in Auckland and Christchurch as well as Wellington so that it can respond as quickly as possible to problems as they arise.