MODERN UNIONISM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21916, 27 September 1934, Page 16

MODERN UNIONISM

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED CHARGE BY EMPLOYER . [Br TEtEGBAPH—PKESS ASSOCIATION'] f - CHRISTCHUHCH, Wednesday A serious charge against trade unions was made' by Mr. S. G. Holland, president of the Canterbury Employers' Association. Referring to developments of recent years, Mr. Holland said: "Another amazing turn in modern unionism is the use of 1 local bodies for the adoption of a policy of victimisation toward firms whose representatives appear as conciliation council assessors and have the temerity to disagree with the demands of the unions' assessors. Employers' assessors have been threatened with other means to enforce compliance with union demands, and .those threats have been put into operation at the expense of the public by contracts for identically the same goods being; awarded to tenderers at higher prices.

"The official reason given has been that labour conditions influenced the decision arrived at, but thvj conditions of employment under which the unsuccessful but lowest tenderers' employees work are at least as favourable as those of the tenderer to whom the contract is awarded. 1 say that such a state of affairs is a scandal and a disgrace." LABOUR LEADERS' REPLY "POLICY. OF PROTECTION " - [BY TELEG B AFH—PRESS ASSOCIATION] CHKISTCHURCH, Wednesday Labdur leaders and trade union secretaries, replying to-day to 'the Statement made by Mr. S. G. Holland regarding the letting of contracts, were unanimous that Mr. Holland had miistaken the policy of protection for one of victimisation. They contended that certain employers,'in their efforts to obtain contracts, had evaded the agreements and awards in regard to wages and conditions by taking advafltage of the present industrial legislation. l "

The result was that fair and reasonable employers had no hope of securing a contract against unfair com petitorn unless there were some check. A check had beep effectively im|x>sed when local bodies made an alteration in their form of tender. By this change every tenderer*.was required to show the rate of wages to be paid during the contract. If it «wore found that one man was not abiding by the agreement to wiiich he and co-tenderers were parties, his offer was refused and he was told tbe reason.