DANGEROUS TRENDS IN N.Z.

Wanganui Chronicle, 7 May 1947, Page 5

DANGEROUS TRENDS IN N.Z.

WORK STOPPAGES A MENACE TO INDUSTRY VIEWS OF EMPLOYERS As a result of recent developments in the industrial world, he thought it was proper that he should make a statement to inform the public of what he regarded as a dangerous trend in ( the settlement of industrial disputes, said the president of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (Mr. Percy Ccyle). In his statement, Mr. Coyle issued a warning to union leaders that their present actions would bring trade unionism into disrepute and that the workers themselves would be the greatest sufferers. “New Zealand, in common with many of the other war-wracked countries of the world, has been experiencing unrest for the past 12 months, and iy now entering upon an even more accentuated phase of industrial turmoil, the sole reason being in the ill-balance of the labour market,” said Mr. Coyle. “There will possibly be no real and true adjustment of the difficulties until the supply of labour equates approximately the demand. Nevertheless, it behoves us to examine the position to see if all is being done at the present time to meet the obvious difficulties which confront us. “By reason of the use by the Minister of Labour of the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations, a measure which was essentially a war emergency measure is being used in a way, and producing results, which were not originally contemplated. The object and design of the regulations was Io keep production moving, to keep the wheels of industry turning, no matter what the nature of the current industrial dispute might be.” USE OF REGULATIONS. In Mr. Coyle’s opinion these regulations were not intended to displace the ordinary settled avenues for the adjustment of disputes nor were they intended to oust the jurisdiction and usurp the ordinary functions of the Courts of the country. The position to-day was that whenever a group of workers centrally organised had a grievance and was sufficiently strong to express its views and, with thej possible actions it would take, to disrupt or interfere with the particular industry in which the workers were engaged, there appeared to be an increasing tendency on the part of the Government to invoke the regulations in an effort to settle the issue, not matter what the implications might be. Mr. Coyle stated he had been advised that during the past two months the Minister had set up no less than six tribunals affecting a great number] of industries and to date the result had always been in some measure favourable to the workers in that it conceded either the whole or a substantial amount of the claims they demanded. The following industries were affected: — Milk roundsmen (Auckland) struck; March 17. Tribunal set up. Freezing workers (Canterbury) struck; March 22. Tribunal set up., Abattoirs (Christchurch). Following the freezing works strike these workers were amalgamated with the freezing workers and granted an increase. Abattoirs (Burnside). Threatened to strike unless they received the same increase as the Christchurch workers. Coal mines (Waikato), March 27; workers struck; 400 men affected. Plaster manufacturing workers Auckland) struck and tribunal set up. Paper mills (Whakatane), April 14. struck, and tribunal set up. Fire brigade workers: Although a strike was not threatened a tribunal has been set up. Sugar workers (Auckland). April 22, struck, and tribunal set up. The maritime workers, Merchant Service Guild, Marine Engineers’ Institute, Seamen’s Union, and Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union: Following threats of resignations, etc., special disoutes committee set up. “Almost weekly one or other of the freezing works in the North Island suffers a go-slow strike,” said Mr. Coyle. “The work on the waterfront at Auckland and Wellington is handicapped by stop-work meetings much too frequently. POSITION OF AWARDS. “The obvious effect of this is that the appropriate and relevant awards have been altered or amended by a back-door method. As everyone knows, an industrial award is a solemn document. It is made only after a great deal of lime, effort, and money have been expended in preparing for and conducting proceedings before a conciliation council and very frequently thereafter when the matter is referred to the Court of Arbitration. This Court finally makes the award, which, as the late Mr. Justice O'Regan described it, is ‘an extension of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act itself.’ “From the foregoing it is obvious that if tho deliberations and recommendations of conciliation councils and the awards of the Court of Arbitration arc to be maintained in their fullest effectiveness, the constant resort to the use of tribunals and committees described must be cither eliminated or greatly reduced,” said Mr. Coyle. Mr. Coyle said that, as he had aL ready indicated, he appreciated the labour difficulties which confronted lhe Government and would probably continue to confront the Government for some time, but he felt that the real; solution of those difficulties would not] be successfully attained as long as the ; methods described above continued to, be used. U IDE EFFECT. Another very disquieting feature; resulting from this method of procedure is an attempt on the part of some of the more militant unions to exploit delibciatcly the position of the labour market and in many instances the exploitation affects not only the immediate employers in the industry, but is reflected in many phases if not all of the national life of the Dominion,’ said Mr. Coyle. I In conclusion, Mr. Coyle stated thatj he had no quarrel with trade unionism and would bo lhe last to decry its value or to minimise the benefits it had conferred upon all sections or tho community in. the past. He hopeu and believed it was capable of main-! taming ia lhe future the same benelits.! hut if lhe union leaders and officialscontinued to exploit the present position in the manner in which they were now - doing, the inevitable rcuult would be to bring trade unionism into disrepute and the workers themselves would eventually be the greatest sufferers.

MINISTER DEFENDS HISS POLICY WORKERS NOT WHOLLY TO BLAME (P.A.) Wellington, May 6. In an interview to-day the Minister of Labour, Mr. McLagan, said his attention had been drawn to a statement by Mr. P. Coyle, president of the N.Z. Employers' Federation, in which Mr. Coyle criticised the use of the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations for the settlement ot industrial disputes. The Minister said he was not in agreement with the views expressed by Mr. Coyle, as the ordinary machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes was, in many cases, inadequate, having regard to the fact that although the Court of Arbitration was, under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the final authority to which reference could be made, it would be impossible for the Court to act as arbitrator in a large number of disputes that .arose from time to time and which did not involve the making of a. new award. The Minister pointed out that many complaints had been made to him of the difficulties and delays experienced by officials of workers' unions in having their ordinary disputes dealt with by Conciliation Councils and referred to the Court for settlement, these complaints invariably relating to the attitude adopted by employers during negotiations. Delays in settlement of industrial disputes had very serious consequences so far as industrial harmony was concerned, with the result that matters on which there had been no disagreement at the commencement of a dispute might be the subject of serious disagreement by the time an award was issued. It was for the purpose of eliminating delays in securing legally binding decisions in disputes which, in the opinion of the Minister, were likely to result in strikes or lock-outs or had resulted in strikes or lock-outs, that the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations were enacted during the war years, and although actual hostilities had ceased, it was considered the industrial situation in this country was still such as to require the retention of these regulations. DISPUTES QUOTED. The Minister then drew attention did not strike, as alleged by Mr Coyle, and stated that in only six of these had emergency disputes committees been set up under the Strike and Lock-out Emergency Regulations. In addition to that major discrepancy in Mr. Coyle's statement, it was seriously incorrect in matters of detail. For instance: (1) The Auckland milk roundsmen did noat srike, as alleged by Mr Coyle. (2) Tlie Christchurch abattoir workers were not amalgamated with the freezing workers following the freezing workers’ dispute. The tribunal in this instance was appoidnted at the urgent request of the employers (Christchurch City Council) in order to give effect to an agreement already made between the City Council and the abattoir workers. (3) No tribunal was appointed to deal with the Waikato coal mines dispute. That dispute was settled at a round table conference between the Waikato miners and the management. Did the Employers’ Federation disapprove of the disputes being settled in that way? (4) No tribunal was appointed in tlie Whakatane Paper Mills dispute. The dispute was settled following a visit by the District Conciliation Commissioner and discussions between the commissioner and the employees and management. Did the Employers' Federation disapprove of disputes being settled in that way? (5) No tribunal had been appointed in connection with the maritime workers' dispute. Following the resignation of tlie members ot the Merchant Service Guild, he (the Minister) convened a conference of four maritime organisations to discuss the position. As a result of tlie conference and meetings with employers the dispute was so far on the way towards settlement that the resignations were being withheld. Did the Employers’ Federation disapprove of the workers and employers being brought together in that way to discuss and settle disputes? In addition to the foregoing inaccuracies, there were other shortcoming', in Mr. Coyle's statem.'"'*. but he uid not propose to deal with these in detail at the moment. TRIBUNALS Mr. Coyle proposed elimination, or reduction of the use of tribunals. That suggestion was apparently based upon inaccurate information supplied to him. Actually, the suggestion would not assist in reducing industrial unrest, but would almost certainly aggravate it. Industrial disputes occurred from time to time which did not concern the making ot new awards, and which required it to be dealt with more speedily than was possible under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act procedure. A typical instance of these was the Auckland sugar workers' dispute, over tlie alleged victimisation of an employee. In that dispute the employer agreed to reinstatement of the dismissed employee when the matter came before the tribunal. Would anyone suggest it would have been better to have allowed tho dispute to drag on indefinitely without tho Government's inteivention to bring tlie parties together? Ample evidence of the probability of industrial trouble had been supplied to lhe Minister. To refrain from appointing the tribunal would be to destine settlement of the dispute to be dragged out over a period of many months. Did tlie Employers' Federation consider such delay in tlie settlement of that dispute advisable? Did the employers believe that lhe Government should await tlie occurrence of stoppages of work before bringing the parties together to discuss disputes and have them settled? UNIONS BLAME EMPLOERS FOR DELAY. It was a frequent ground of complaint bv unions that tlie employers unnecessarily protracted proceedings under tlie Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There was evidence in some instances to warrant that complaint when the need was lor more speedy settlement of disputes. No good purpose was likely to be served by suggesting the elimination of tlie method of securing a speedy settlement of disputes. It was idle for llie employers to suggest that the whole of the responsibility for industrial disputes rested upon tlie employees. If all employers were of lhe calibre <if Mr. Coyle there would be mueh less industrial trouble, but. On the other hand, there were employers whose ideas of industrial relations were appropriate only to an era of large-scale

unemployment, cud who were unable to adjufc'i themselves to a time of employment surplus. The Employers’ Federation would do well to pay heed to the defects of employers instead of merely criticising employees. If some employees were attempting to exploit the present position of the labour market, it should always be kept in mind by the Employers’ Federation that the employees were given some notorious examples of such exploitation when tlie position of the labour market was in favour of tho employers. GOVERNMENT LOOKED UPON AS RESPONSIBLE. In conclusion, tho Minister said that while, in Mr. Coyle’s own words, labour difficulties confront the Government the settlement of these labour difficulties was as much tho responsibility of the employers and the unions as of tho Government. There appeared to bo a tendency on the part both employers and employees to look upon lhe settlement of industrial disputes as being mainly, or wholly, the Government’:, responsibility. That was entirely a wrong idea. The Govern.rent realised its responsibility and was making every effort to discharge it, but unless employers and employees realised and carried out their obligations the Government’s efforts could not be fully successful. Above all. it was necessary for employers and employees not only to pull their weight in lhe settlement of disputes, but to do everything possible to avoid creation of disputes. To that end a better state of industrial relations was essential.