PARLIAMENT Amended Strike Bill Described As “Farce"

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 September 1947, Page 3

PARLIAMENT Amended Strike Bill Described As “Farce"

WELLINGTON, September 2.

There was a stormy opening to the second reading debate on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this evening. There were many interjections as the Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan) discussed the bill and then went on to criticise what he said would be the reactions of the National Party to it.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) denied Mr McLagan’s assertions. Mr Holland said that the amendments concerning the secret ballot clause were “ah abject surrender, a runaway, a back-down, and a farce.’’ “The strong man has run away,’’ said Mr Holland.

Mr AV. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) later charged the Federation of Labour with treating the Labour Bills Committee with contempt. Asked to give its views to the committee, the federation had done nothing, he said. Mr Sheat said the Opposition would endeavour to improve the bill by moving amendments in committee.

The bill proposed to do three things—provide the Arbitration Court with assistance to enable it overtake, arrears of work, to give the court direct authority to interpret industrial awards and agreements, and provide for a secret ballot on strike issues, said Mr McLagan. Behind With Work The Minister said the Arbitration Court was behind in its work, not because it was inefficient but because in recent years the volume of work hacl increased. It was well known that delays aggravated disputes and that settlements that were acceptable early in disputes often became unacceptable later. It had been proved that employers had taken advantage of the court’s inability to deal with cases. Deputy judges would be appointed to assist the court, and their decisions would be subject to appeal before the full court. Mi- M. H. Oram (Opposition, Manawatu): t)o the deputies sit by themselves or with assessors? Mr McLagan said the deputy judges would sit by themselves.

Mr McLean said the Government believed a secret ballot on strike issues was necessary so that the real opinion of the members on the most important matters which came before trade unions might be obtained. He did not intend to waste much time on those who had objected to secret ballots, which were completely in accord with working-class principles. It was considered by nearly all the opponents of the bill that a secret ballot was good and that there already was ample provision for it. If that were so, his answer’ was that it was better to have it operating all the time, and not for some of the time. Bill Not Unworkable Another objection was that the bill was unworkable, that a proposed strike by members of one union would require a ballot among members of other unions. That was nonsense.- The original measure made it cleai’ that a ballot would be required only of the members of the union concerned, and further particularised that if only a section of a union was involved the ballot could be restricted to that section.

’ The bill had amended by the. Labour Bills Committee to give further strength to the secret ballot issue. It previously fixed penalties for failure to conduct a secret ballot, but the Government was not particularly interested in inflicting penalties. It was more concerned with giving union members the inalienable right to a secret ballot. Hence a new provision empowered the Registrar of Unions to conduct a ballot if the union itself failed to do so. Mr McLagan said another objection to the orgiinal bill was that it reversed the usual principle of British justice by requiring persons to prove their innocence or be deemed guilty. That was a misreading, for actually the bill had, merely provided that a guilty person might escape the penalties if he could prove extenuating circumstances. However, as the Government was not greatly concerned with penalties, the original provision for penalties had been taken out of the bill altogether and the only penalty now was for noncompliance with the requests, of the Registrar of Unjons.

It had . been suggested that as 90 per cent, of union members were insufficiently intelligent or interested to follow union affairs, it should be left to the 10 per cent, to take decisions on major matters. TJiat argument was really an expression of contempt for the rank and file of union members. Mr W. G. Goosman (Opposition, Piako): Will the Minister tell us who said that? Mr McLagan: It doesn’t really matter. The important thing is that it was said.

Decisions by Union Executives; The Minister said another objection to the bill was that it was competent for union executives to take policy decisions, but most unionists would warmly defend their rights against arbitrary decisions by executives.’ “These objections to the bill are coming mostly from people who are now posing as industrial Napoleons but who were not prepared to raise their voices for strike action in the days when strikes were necessary and justified,” said Mr McLagan. The bill was not designed to prevent strikes but to give unions the right tb prevent them. The Government knew strikes could not be prevented by anti-strike legislation, for to attempt that was to go against history. The National Party, on the other hand, thought strikes could be prevented by wielding the whip. The only way to prevent strikes was to legislate for the general improvement of the social and economic conditions of the workers and for the prompt settlement of disputes. ’’Poisonous Propaganda”

Mr Holland said the latter portion of the Minister’s spe’ech was typical of the poisonous political propaganda in which he indulged on every possible occasion. , Mr Holland said the Minister who proclaimed that strikes could not be prevented by anti-strike legislation was the same man who, as a member of the Wai- Administration, had asked for the right to impose a fine

on strikers and to dump them into prison'. Strikes could not be prevented on all occasions, but every legislative aid should be given to conciliatory negotiation and there must be provision for fair and firm administration of the law once negotiations had been conducted. The Government had fallen into the simple, human error of addressing itself to the reduction of work - ing hours a day, of days a week, and of weeks a year with the result, acknowledged in the Budget, that production had fallen, said Mi’ Holland. The Government’s legislation had thus defeated its own end of providing a higher standard of living. It was interesting that Mr K. McL. Baxter, secretary of the Federation of Labour, was reported from Melbourne today as warning Australian unionists against making the same errors as New Zealand about the 40hour week. Labour had claimed that it could bring industrial peace more successfully than any other government because it understood the workers, but the chief Ministers were greatly disappointed that their legislation had been accompanied by a great deal of industrial trouble. “Only a Few Leaders” The average New Zealand worker loathed strikes, but workers, through their Parliamentary representatives, had failed to find an effective way of stopping strikes, from which the workers themselves suffered most, said Mr Holland. The militant unions that caused trouble could be counted on two hands, and even in those unions it was only a few leaders who were responsible. Mr Holland said the militant leaders had discovered that by employing direct action, threat of strike, and the go-slow, they obtained better results than did other unions by lawful processes. They had also discovered that if they pulled together strongly enough the Government would give way, and that penalties under the law would not be enforced against them. They had seen the Prime Minister override decisions of the courts of justice, wiping out penalties. <■ How could they be expected to respect a Prime Minister who set aside the courts?

Mr Holland said it had long been written into the law that strikes were unlawful, but certain trade union leaders, knowing that that part of the law was a dead letter, opposed this bill because it was something new. When the bill was before the Labour Bills Committee the committee was ignored by those best able to offer evidence—the Federation of Labour and the union bosses—they .went instead to the Minister, with the result that the penalty provisions had been eliminated.

Union leaders had seen in the bill a threat to their powers, and when they protested the Minister, who had been a unionist himself, but had adopted a different outlook since he became a Minister, had given way. As the strong, silent man he claimed to be, he had declared that the bill would go through, and he had, in fact, won the first battle —the battle of words. But he had surrendered in the second battle —the battle of the secret ballot. . Worthless Without Penalties The bill as reported back, from the committee was just another capitulation, just another surrender, said Mr Holland. The strong man had run away. The secret ballot clause had been so rewritten that it was now as worthless as a balloon with nothings in it. A law providing for secret ballots without a penalty for failure to observe the law was worthless. The National Party wanted to improve facilities for investigating industrial disputes, to accelerate the court’s work, and prevent strikes. The party was not opposed to the secret ballot, but there should be a 51 per cent, majority before strike action was taken. Mr C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington Central) said it was remarkable how little time had been lost through strikes in NeW Zealand. In 1939 there were 61 strikes which lasted an average of about a week. In 1944 there were 149 strikes, averaging less than two days, and in 1945 there were 154 strikes averaging two and a half days. Committee Ignored

Mr Sheat said the Federation of Labour had been guilty of reducing the proceedings of the Labour Bills Committee to a farce by ignoring the invitatiop to give evidence. The Minister had treated the committee with scant consideration by bringing down extensive amendments from some source which was not disclosed to the committee. The experience of the last few months in New Zealand was a sufficient answer to the member for Wellington Central. Between 1936 and 1946, under a Labour Government, there were 913 strikes, or an average of 88 a year. The brief duration of strikes was accounted for by the fact that in too many cases there had been capitulation by the Government. Mr Sheat said the duty of the Registrar of Industrial Unions should be clear cut. Did the Government intend that it should be mandatory or optional for the Registrar to take action? The original bill was received favourably by all except the union bosses. The Postmaster-General (Mr F. Hackett) said the amendments to the bill went through the Labour Bills Committee unanimously, and the member for Patea had raised no objection to them. The Government did not consider the bill would abolish industrial strikes. There were other ways to do that: by the removal of injustices and irritation tactics and the despicable meannesses of employers.

Mr T. C. Webb (Opposition, Rodney) said the Minister had been hard put to it to excuse his capitulation to those on whom he depended for political support. Members of the Federation of Labour had apparently persuaded the Minister to pull the teeth out of the bill. The modern Samson had been shorn of his locks.