NOT BOTH WAYS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 16, 19 July 1939, Page 18

NOT BOTH WAYS

COMMON-SENSE VIEW

IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES

AWARDS MUST BE

KEPT

The Minister said collective security carried with it collective responsibility. The Government did not intend to have the law running both ways. Unions had either to abide by the decision of the Court or suffer deregistration. It was true that penalties at present provided in the Act had not been enforced. No Government for the past ten years had applied the penal clauses of the Act They were not to be blamed for that, for they had taken the common-sense view and endeavoured to keep industry running. The Labour Government was not going back on any of its earlier legislation, and the present Bill merely gave full expression to the intention of legislation already writ-, ten into the Statute Book by the Labour Government.

"If a union seeks the protection of the Arbitration Court and demands the privileges of the Arbitration Act, it must abide by the decisions of the Court," went on Mr. Webb. "If a Union comes out on strike because it is dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, I must ask this House for authority to dcregister that union. That is all lam asking with this Bill."

Mr. Webb said he wanted to be in a position to administer the industrial law in a common-sense way. The is- ! sue before the House was not a party question. It would not be to the Opposition's advantage to throw bricks about. He could stop all the bricks that were coining ;his way, but he believed the Opposition would realise that the Bill was necessary in the interests of industrial peace. "I do not think it is the last word in legislation of this sort or that it will put an end to industrial disputes," added the Minister. "But I do believe it to be a helpful contribution towards the smoother operation of industry." CHIEF OBJECTIVE. The Minister said Ihe BilFs chief objective was to prevent unlawful stoppages of work. There was a stoppage at Auckland at the present time. This made the passing of the Bill a matter of urgency. If a settlement could not be reached the Minister would have no alternative but to impose a penalty. When the present Bill became law, action would be taken forthwith. Mr. Webb added that the Government had intended to bring the present Bill down early in the last Parliament, but at that time it had thought 1 it possible to get along without the legislation. His opinion now was that the sooner the Bill became law and its effects felt, t'-3 better it would bo for the industiual life of the country. "How does the Minister hope to achieve industrial peace after the deregistration of unions?" asked the Rt Hon. G. W. Forbes (National, Hurunui), who was deputising for the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton). He pointed out that strikes had been infinitesimal under the system of voluntary arbitration brought about by the past Government. Mr. A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehunga): There were not so many working then. The men were all on relief. Mr. Forbes: There were not so many working for the Government. Agreeing with the Minister that harmony could not be obtained in industry by the infliction of penalties, Mr. j Forbes added that the essential thing ! was to maintain industry. in motion. llf the Minister felt the Bill would be lan assistance to the. smoother operatio.i of industry he deserved every support, but it the meantime more information was needed. PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY. The view that the State should have paramount authority in the settlement of disputes was expressed by Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East), who spoke in support of the Bill. Especially was this necessary when it came to a question of dealing with small sections of industry which unjustly provoked strikes and holdups, he said. It had been suggested that the power which the Bill proposed to vest in the Minister should have been given to the Arbitration Court, but with the authority resting in the hands of the Minister there would be less reason for delay. Mr. Schramm also pointed out that the Bill guarded against the formation of spurious unior/5 to take the place of those that had been deregistered. The Government that was making the laws for the preservation of industrial harmony was going to see that those laws were carried out. While assuring the House that the Opposition would lend a hand in all cases where it was considered that by doing so industrial peace would be furthered, Mr. S. G. Holland (National, Quristcliurch, North) declared that the

Minister would be disappointed if he was under the impression that the passing of the Bill would . have any material effect on industrial disputes. Militant unions did not care a snap of the fingers whether the I.C. and A. Act was in operation or not. They thought themselves already powerful enough to negotiate their own agreements without any assistance from the Arbitration Court. RIGHT TO STRIKE. Mr. Holland asked the Minister whether the fundamental right of the worker to strike was to be taken from him. It had always been heard from the Government side of the House that the worker should have that privilege. The proposed legislation set up an industrial dictator who was to function instead of the Court. Was ~it right that the Court should operate in one case and the Minister in another? he asked. Strikes meant the loss of about £30,000 a year in wages and this was recouped by higher wages. The Bill gave.no right to the employer or the worker.to appeal. Why not set up some judicial Court to consider the question? . There was no right given for anew union to register to take the place of the deregistered union. "What does the Miners' Union care for deregistration?" asked Mr. Holland. Mr. Webb: They are not in it. ; Mr. Holland wanted to know what was the value of the legislation if such unions were not subject to it. Most of the industrial troubles came from militant unions. The Minister had represented to the House that the deregistraiton of a union was a more severe penalty than anything previously enacted. In the past penalties had not been applied. What guarantee had the House, then, that the Minister would be more virile in the future in the use of the penal clauses than in the past? Strikes "in 1933, 1934, and 1935 had numbered,sl, as,against 167 in the following three years. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said that penalties provided under existing legislation should have been imposed. That would have been fair to both employers and workers. He drew attention to the,position at Auckland, where the fertiliser workers were ion strike. Engaged in the industry were drivers, storemen, packers, and other classes of workers. Would all., the ,various awards under which these men worked be cancelled under the provisions of the new legislation? The. Government had promised the country industrial peace. Without it New Zealand could not progress, nor could the standard of living be maintained. He wished the Minister could prove that the promise 'would be carried out under the Bill. FERTILISER STRIKE. After reviewing the, history of the fertiliser workers' strike in Auckland, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara) said there was a .fixed price for the product and the employers had practically no latitude to increase costs. Mr. T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton): Bigger profits. Mr. Coates said that they had to look on the taxation side. This was the time for top-dressing. All kinds of crops had to be prepared for the feeding of the people, and it was imperative to have fertilisers. The Minister should explain to the House why he did not proceed under the provisions of the I.C. and A. Act to enforce the penalties provided. It might be that the Minister thought the process would be too long. If workers in the Auckland fertiliser industry were treated in a different way from those in the same industry in other districts, other unions would immediately ask for similar treatment. Was the position being materially improved by the Minister being given the power to cancel awards? What would be the result of such"action?" The Minister might find that he could not bring about a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Then what would happen? Was it contemplated that the employers could call upon other labour to carry on, or would the Government provide the men? A key industry was concerned in the Auckland position and production had to be'maintained. The previous Minister of Labour (Mr. Armstrong) had said he "hitched his wagon" to the Arbitration Court. It appeared that that principle was being departed from now. FORMER MINISTER'S VIEW. The Minister of Housing (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong), who was the former Minister of Labour, said that for the first time in the history of New Zealand legislation of 1936 laid it down that it was compulsory to employ unionists provided the law was observed, but it was ridiculous in the extreme to continue to enforce compulsory unionism if a section of the workers were going to please themselves whether they observed the law or not. Compulsory unionism carried with it the responsibility of the unions to see that the law was enforced and that work was not disrupted from time to time as it had been recently. "As a matter of fact," continued Mr. Armstrong, "I thought a provision of this kind was necessary in 1936. I have seen what has happened in other countries. The Queensland Labour Government found it necessary to do the very thing we are asking the House to do, with the result that there has not been anything like the number of stoppages there were prior to the passing of the amendment. The only difference between our proposal and the Queensland Act is that in Queensland it is controlled by the Arbitration Court, and registration is automatically cancelled when a strike takes place. It is ratther a cumbersome system, and at the rate our Arbitration Court has been working lately a strike might be in progress for three months before the parties could get a hearing at all." Mr. Armstrong said that the dispute in the fertiliser industry had nothing to do with the Bill. It was talked about long before that dispute happened. "We want this iv the interests i

of good unionism and for the preservation of trade, unionism," continued the Minister. "If the unruly elements who are responsible for stoppages from time to time are allowed to go unchecked,, they will bring about destruction of the trade union movement." Mr. Broadfoot: Could they not be ejected from the union? EXPULSION FROM UNION. The Minister: No. The chances are that the Minister will be bringing down legislation later in the session. We have discussed that very thing. When I was Minister of Labour I pointed out that we should expel these people,.but when we did expel them, what would happen? Take the case of the Seamen's Union on the West Coast, where two ships were held up. The men were told by the union to take the ships to sea, and the men refused to do it. The union expelled them from membership for not carrying out the directions of the union. Those men brought a claim for damages against the union in the Supreme Court and made the union pay heavy damages, in addition to which the union had to readmit them to membership. There was a union penalised for expelling members for acting in defiance of the law and in defiance of the union itself. Other unions are not going to follow that union. Mr. Armstrong said that the unions should have the power and should not be afraid to exercise it. "People who do that sort of thing are betraying the fundamental principle of unionism," he said. "I have told them that in no uncertain terms. This Bill will make it possible for the Government to inflict penalties where it has not the power to do so today. Take the watersiders. They could go down to the wharf and refuse to accept engagement. There is no strike, though no ships are being worked. The Court would rule that there was no strike. Under this amendment we would catch them." j CABINET'S CONSENT. j On the question of appeal Mr. Armstrong said that the Minister did not! act without the consent of Cabinet, and Cabinet should be looked upon as the highest court of appeal in the country. (Opposition dissent.) "Well, while we are the Cabinet we will look upon ourselves as such," he added. "To my mind this legislation is overdue and very necessary and desirable, and even if it does not succeed in every respect, i at least I am satisfied that some good will accrue from it." Prefacing his speech with a point of order, Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National, j Jticcarton) said that he had an idea that while a want-of-confidence motion j was before the House no other business could be brought- forward. Mr. Speaker said it was true, according to Mr. Speaker O'Rourke as far back as 1895, that it was the invai'iable practice for the Government to suspend all other business until the want-of-confidence motion had been settled. He would point out, how-| ever, that the motion meant a long debate and if the Government considered that the present Bill was of an urgent natufe, as apparently it did, it seemed to him that no intervention by the Chair was called for. Mr. Kyle said the House had to listen night and d,ay to speeches from Government members reminding the people what they had . had to go through during the depression years, but when Opposition members quoted the number of industrial strikes that had. occurred since Labour took office they were told that the comparison was not a fair one. He did no* see how the Bill was going to promote industrial peace. If men were out on strike, they would remain out. It seemed to him that the employers would not be able to engage free labour. Mr. Armstrong: Oh, yes, they will. Three years ago, when the amendments to the Act were before the House, the Opposition had pointed out many of the difficulties that, the Government would have to face after a time, said Mr. Kyle. It was extraordinary, in view of the purpose of the Bill, that the Government was trying to bring farm workers under the I.C. and A. Act. Miv Holland: So that they can deregister them. Mr. Kyle: I want the Minister to think again and perhaps change his mind regarding any attempt to bring the farm labourer under the Act. Referring to the point of order in the course of his reply, the Minister recalled that In 1932 the Address-in-Reply debate had been interrupted to allow of the introduction of amendments to the I.C. and A. Act providing for compulsory conciliation and optional arbitration. The passing of the present Bill was a question of real urgency, but by no stretch of the imagination could the amendments passed in 1932 be so regarded. ' PREVENTING STRIKES. One might think . that Opposition members regretted the possibility of improving the industrial legislation and preventing strikes taking place, said Mr. Webb. (Opposition members: No. No.) Mr. Holland: Would it stop them from striking? That is the point. Mr. Webb: I never suggested that it would. So long as there is economic injustice there will always be strikes, but this will enable me to deal with some of the problems more effectively than can be done at present. If a union's registration was cancelled, the principle of compulsory unionism went with it, said the Minister. The Bill would make it quite permissible for him to compel the parties to a dispute to meet in conciliation. If there was no agreement the men still retained the right to strike, but they could not have it both ways. They could not avail themselves of the protection of the Court and enjoy the principle of compulsory unionism on the one hand, and enjoy the right to strike on the other hand. Mr. Holland: Do you believe in the right to strike? Mr. Webb: I certainly do, and this is not taking that right away from them. Mr. Poison asked what happened to an employer if a union went out on strike. The Minister said that at present an employer could not put on any labour, union or non-union, but if a union was deregistered the employer could employ whom he liked, because compulsory unionism disappeared with the deregistration. He did not think that the new law would have to be invoked on many occasions, but it was wise to have the power if needed. While it might not stop all strikes he thought that the amendment would help very considerably in clearing the industrial atmosphere. "WHITE ANTING." When the Committee stages were being discussed several Opposition members referred to the possibility of trouble being caused by "white anting" in the unions, and Mr. Broadfoot warned the Minister that some provision was required to prevent Communists from creating trouble within the! unions. The Minister said that it was very difficult to draft a clause to cover such a possibility. Opposition members: It is very necessary. I The Minister said that members j might have an opportunity to vote on such a clause before the end of the session. The Bill was put through the remaining stages and passed at 5.25 p.m., when the House adjourned until 7.30 ip.m.

they not be