INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Chronicle (Levin), 7 May 1947, Page 7

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

— Press AssQciation

Minister Defends Method Of Settlement

By Telegraph

WELLINGTON, May 6. In an intervicw today the Minister of Labour, Hon. A. MeLagan; said his attention had been drawn to a statenient by Mr. F. Coyle, president of the N.Z. Employers' Federation in which Mr. Coyle criticised the use of tJhe strike and lookout emergency regulations for a settlement of 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 eases inadequate, having regard to the fact that although the Court of Arbitration was under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the fmal authority to which reference could be made, it would be impossible for the court to act as arbitrator in the 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 difliculties and delays experienced by oflicials of the 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 duripg negotiations. ' Delays in the 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 commencenient of a dispute, hiiglit be ihe subjeet of serious disagreement by the time the award was issued. It was for the purpose of eliminating delays in securing legally binding deoisions in disputes which, in the opinion of Ihe Minister, were likely to result in stiikes or loekouts or had resulted in strikes or loekouts, that the strike and lot kout emergency regulations were enLcted during the war years and although actual hostilities had ceased, it was considered that the industrial situauon in this country was still sucli as to require the retention of these regulations. The Minister then drew attention to ten disputes quoted by Mr. Coyle and stated that in only six of these had an emergency disputes eommittee been set up under the strike and lockout emergency regulations. In addition to that major discrepancy, Mr. Coyle 's statement was seriously incorrect in matters of detail. For instance: (1) Auckland milk roundsmen did not strike as alleged by Mr. Coyle. (2) Christchurch abattoir workers were not amalgamated with the freezing workers following the freezing workers' dispute. The tribunal in this instance was appointed at the urgent request of the employers (Christchurch City Council) in order to give effect to an agreement already made between the i City Council and 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 managements. Did the Employers' Federation disap prove of disputes being settled in that way? (4) No tribunal was appointed in the Whakatane paper rnills' dispute which was settled following a visit by the district Conciliation Coinmissioner and discussions between the- Commissioner and 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 members of the Merchant Hervice Guild. He (the Minister) eom -'d a conference of the four lnaritinu ; anisations to discuss the position auu .,s a result of the conference and meetings with the employers, the dispute was so far on its way towards settlement that the resignations were being withheld. Did the .Employers' Federation disapprove of workers and employers being brought together i'n that way to discuss and settle disputes? In addition to tlie foregoing inaccuracies there were other shortcomings in , Mr. Coyle 's stateinent but he did not' propose to deal with these in detail at the moment. Mr. Coyle proposed the elimination or redtlction of -the use of tribunals. That suggestion was appareutly based upon iuaccurate informasion supplied to him. Actually the suggestion would not assist in redueing industrial unrest. but would almost certainly aggravate it. Industrial disputes oceurred from time to time which did not concern the making of hew awards and which required to be dealt" with more speedily than was- possible under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act proeedure. A typical instance of these was the Auckland sugar workers' dispute over the alleged victimisation of an employee. In that diBpute the employer agreed to the reinstatement of the dismissed einployee when the matter came uefore the tribunal. Would anyone suggest it would hnve been better to have allowed the'i'daspute to drag on ladeflnitely withou't -the Government's intervention to bring 'the parties together ? In the fire brighdes' dispute where araple evidence of tlie probability of industrial trouble ha"d been supplied to tlie Minister, to' rfefraih from appointiiig a tribunal would be to destine the settlement of the dispute to be dragged out over a period of many months. Did the Employers ' Federation consider such a delav in thb settlement of that dispute advisable? Did tlie employers believe that the Government should await the occurrence of stoppages of work before oringing parties together to discuss disputes and have them settled? . It was a frequent ground of complaint by the unions that employers uVineeessarily protraeted proceedings under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. /There was evidence in some instances to Avarrant that complaint when the need was for a more speedy settlement of disputes. No good purpose was likely to be served by suggesting the elimination of the method of securing speedy settlement of disputes. It was idle for employers : to suggest that the whole of the responsibility for industrial^ disputes rested upon the employees. If all employers were of the calibre of Mr. Coyle 1 there would be much less industrial trouble but on the other hand there were employers whose ideas of industrial relations were appropriate only to the era of large scale unemployment and who were unable to adjust fyiemselvps to a time of employment sur- ] plus. The Employers' Federation would do well to pay heed to the defects of , employers instead of merely criticising 1 employees. If some employees were atteinpting to exploit the present position of the labour market it shc.uld always be lcept in mind by the ' •'i.loyers' Federation that empkr ere given some notorious exampi- ucli exploitation when the posiliu • tlie labouremarket was in favour Ui. LitO C1I1" I ployers. In conclusion, the Minister said that while in Mr. Coyle's own words, labour difliculties confront the Government, the settlement of these labour difficul ties was as much the resporisibility of emplo^'ers and unions as of the Government. There appeared to be a tendency on the part,. of both employers and employees to" look upon the settle ( ment of industrial disputes as being niainly or wliolly the Government's responsibilitv. That was an entirely , wrong idea. The Government realised its responsibility and gvas maldng every efliort to discharge it but unless employers and employees realised and earried out their obligations, the Government's efforts could not be fully successful. Above all it was necessarv for" employers and employees not only to pull theii weight in the settlement of dispuies but also to do everything possible to avoid the creation of disputes. To that end a better state of industrial relations was essential.