Secret Ballot Labour Federation Plan For Mass Protests: Clash With Government

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 August 1947, Page 2

Secret Ballot Labour Federation Plan For Mass Protests: Clash With Government

(SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT)

WELLINGTON, This Day.

An official and public difference between the Government and the New Zealand Federation of Labour has developed over; the Government’s proposed legislation compelling’ secret ballots where strike action is contemplated. The opposition to the Government’s move is centred in the militant unions, but the decision of the national council of the Federation to protest was a unanimous one in which representatives of non-militant groups shared.

It seems nnlikd.v that the proposed new law will have any real effect in curbing strike action. Its chief' significance lies in the evidence it gives that, the Government, is now prepared publicly Io declare Avar on those whom it. regards as strike leaders. It is a gesture that appears likely within the trade union

movement to unite union opposition to the Government’s industrial policy rather than to divide it.

The deputation of protest which went to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, was led not by a militant unionist, but by the secretary of the Shop Assistants’ Federation in the person of Mr A. AV. Croskery, who. is president of the Federation of Labour. The so-called moderate as well as militant elements were there to support a unanimous decision of the national council of the Federation. The demosntrations and job protests planned will be the most widespread in many years. The decision of the Federation to recommend mass protests is reminiscent of the action of the executive of the so-called “Red” Federation of Labour in September, 1912, when it recommended every affiliated union in New Zealand to take a day off in protest at the gaoling of the Waihi strikers. Today's Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was then executive representative of the “Red” Federation at Waihi.

There is a general appreciation here both inside and outside trade union circles, of the effect which strikes can and do have upon the national economy and upon the daily lives. of the people. Militants and non-militants alike, however, jealously defend the claim that right to strike is a traditional right of the worker, and believe that any gesture whatsover against that right, or any move which can be interpreted as “anti-Labour’ in this matter must be resisted. Support For Militants No matter how unpopular certain militant groups may be among other sections of the industrial Labour movement they can no doubt rally support on this issue. Further, they could very quickly on some special issue return a secret ballot result overwhelmingly in favour of a strike. Some such action is not unlikely, to counter the effect of the legislation. It is clear that there is rising dissatisfaction among the unions over the Government’s industrial policy and over aspects of the economic policy which directly affect the worker. This latest action may serve to consolidate this dissatisfaction and further build up the strength of the industrial Labour opposition to the Government on these issues. Seeds Of Disaster

It has' been all along apparent that the reduction of strike action to a minimum—which is the generally desired objective in the national interest—could have been more easily achieved had the Government’s policy been different. It now appears to be forced into the position of declaring war. on those groups within whose ranks in the first instance political Labour had its birth, and from whom it has until now drawn full support and sympathy. These developments carry the seeds of disaster for political Labour at the polls. It seems that the Prime Minister is well aware of this fact. He has declared that, whatever happens it will never be said that his Government did not govern. To continue governing he apparently considers it necessary from now on to master the militant groups rather than to hope for a basis of co-operation. Proposal For Deputy-Judges The Government’s proposal to sneed up the work of the Court of Arbitration by the appointment of deputy-judges, to whom the Court may delegate its powers but from whose decisions appeals to the Court may be made, has not been well received by the New Zealand Federation of Labour. The Federation proposes instead that conciliation commissioners should be given greater powers, by way of authority to make decisions. . . Much of the industrial unrest m recent months has arisen from the long delays in achieving settlement of award claims under the Arbitration Court procedure. The dissatisfaction of the unions was made clear to the Government, and the pending legislation is apparently the result. The Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan did not, however take the Federation of Labour into his confidence when he brought down the amendment providing for the appointment of deputy-judges. The trade unions do not believe that this will make for any quicker solution to the problem of early setlement of award claims. Rather, they beileve it will del<ay proceedings still more, because of the right of appeal. Conciliation Procedure

Instead, they claim that the conciliation commissioners who preside at discussions in the earliest stages of disputes, should be enabled to dispose of them at once. The Federation proposes that these decisions should be. subject later to ratification or rejection by the Court. This method of speeding up proceedings will be placed before the Government by the Federation, but there is no indication that it will be accepted. Employers claim that there is ample time under the existing system for unions to obtain new awards to replace old ones, but that in an extraordinary number of cases unions allow time to drift by without putting in claims, and then blame the arbitration machinery for consequent delays. '