Industrial Communications

Rotorua Morning Post, Issue 5292, 3 January 1947, Page 4

Industrial Communications

' ^HE New Zealand Timber Worker, official organ of the j industry's union, criticised the j proposal recently made by the i Federation of Labour for the i grouping of unions in a series of | 13' groups. It objects to the ; grouping of dairy factory employees, freezing workers, tim- ; ber workers and general labouri ers as rural workers, Although t it agrees with the need for all 1 workers in one industry to be covered by one award, it recalls that drivers employed in the i timber industry, but covered by i the Drivers' Award, wero inj volved in a drivers' dispute in j Auckland with which they had j 110 concern. It asks: "What i industrial connection have the j dairy workers with the timber i workers, or, for that matter, the ! freezing workers and the others ! mentioned?" | From this basis it argues that j each industrial group should | control its own affairs and that | the other points of contact | should be through the Federa- ! tion of Labour. The criticism is i sound, and the argument un- | challengeable. Both come from | the official newspaper of one of j the most successful trade unions j in New Zealand; oue which has j secured for its members maxi- ' mum benefits with minimum | unrest and fewer stoppages of j work than have marked the ! negotiations of nearly all other | unions. ! The Federation of Labour has ! adopted two different methods of grouping, unithig some unions ! 011 the basis of related industries I and others, the timber workers i and the freezing workers, on the I basis of location. One or either ! method might be justified; both | cannot be, and that both have I been adopted seems to suggest ! that the object of the Federa- ! tion is- grouping at all costs, | Grouping makes direct action I more effective since a simultaneI ous strike in several industries | is more to be feared than a ! strike in one industry, but it i contains many dangers. Men i can be involved, to their own | cost, in disputes with which j they have no concern and which j they do not understand. It inj creases centralisation and it I enlarges the authority of the 1 executive members and of the I permanent officials. ! That' authority is already sub- ! stantial. This the develop- ! ments in the waterside situation | prove. When the trouble arose ; j it was announced that the ! opinion of the branches would | be taken, but this report was ! immediately followed by an inj struction- from the national exe- I | cutive, and there has been no i evidence that branches were ! consulted. There have appeared, •however, statements indicating ' that workers in the" smaller ! ports and in related industries have suffered as a result of the ! go-slow .policy. In this is re- | vealed the weakness of centralisation just as in the drivers' j dispute in Auckland there was j shown the weakness of group- | ing. - 4 The first purpose of a union is to.secure reasonable pay, hours I and coiiditions of work for its members and to protect them from exploitation. To enable i them to fulfil it in New Zealand , the Industrial Conciliation and , Arbitration Act provided legal | machinery of which the Arbi- ; tration Court is part. This j machinery has become less and j less used and unions tend more j and more to seek registration j not under this Act but under ' the Trade Union Act, which | allows for direct negotiation i t-ua — x. «... - 1