In< THE STRUGGLE OVER THE siSI EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ACT eas eX) /..,- 1987-1991 ~ - -.. is -- ofl Sarah Heal el( no Otago University n CO se 0\ Abstract T The introduction ofthe Employment Contracts Act was opposed by many workers and has subsequently been condemned S: by a number oforganisations . This paper attempts to address the question ofwhy, given the widespread opposition to Cl the proposed legislation, a general strike did not occur in an attempt to defeat the Employment Contracts Bill. It is argued e1 that the failure ofthe leadership ofthe Council of Trade Unions to take up the call for a general strike and then to lead p sue h an action was a key factor in the enactment ofthe Employment Contracts Act. Explanations for the unwillingness ~ ofthe Council ofTrade Unions to lead a general strike are provided both by the thesis ofbureaucrati c conservatism and 1 by the policy approach adopted by the Council of Trade Unions in the preceding years. ( t f In the aftennath of the enactment of the Employment Their conservatism is contingent because they are, to I Contracts Bill many New Zealander's were bitter and varying extents, underpressme to respond to their rank and t confused as to how such a fundamentally anti-union piece file union members and also under pressure to respond to of legislation, opposed by the majority of the population, the wishes of employers and the govenunent. 2 The ability came to be introduced. This paper represents an attempt to of union officials to manipulate the workplace situation is address that issue. It will be argued that it was the usually dependent upon the apathy or inexperience ofmost capitulation of the trade union leadership to the wishes of of their members. Where there are militant members employers and the National Government that led to the within a union these are often not numerous or influential enactment ofthe legislation. Specifically, the failure of the enough to sway the majority. 3 Council of Trade Union's (C.T.U.) leadership to call for and lead a general strike is cited as a major conjunctural There are two broad reasons for the conservatism of full factor in the passage of the Bill. Other factors include the time union officials. Firstly, they have their own interests, economic crisis, the shift in the balance of power between distinct from those of the rank and file. Secondly the employers and unions and the rise of the New Right concrete circumstances of trade union officialdom tend to cause conservatism. Trade union bureaucrats act as inter­ It is important to examine why the C.T.U. leadership mediaries between capital and labour. Usually, officials neglected to respond to the wishes of its members. This is are aware of their own role and interests and recognise that explained with reference to the policy approach adopted they are dependent on trade unionism for their livelihood. by the C.T .U. in the years preceding the introduction of the Thus they have no interest in jeopardising the status quo.4 Employment Contracts Bill and with reference to the theory of bureaucratic conservatism. Trade union officials also develop conservative tenden­ cies as a result of the work they do. The nature of their woik The thesis of bureaucratic conservatism requires that they be set apart from the ordinary members of the union. They become isolated both geographicaJJy A key restriction on the ability of trade unions to work and ideologically. It therefore becomes very difficult for effectively in the interests of their members is to be found officials to reflect the views of their members. 5 Often they within the unions themselves. Union officials tend to enjoy greater job security and higher wages than rank-and­ display a contingent conservatism.! This conservatism file union members.6 Trade union officials will not usually centrally involves a commitment by union officials to the ag~ee to tactics that will weaken their position within the established procedures of conflict resolution. This usually trade union bureaucracy. Thus strike action is often op­ entails emphasising the role of negotiation in order to posed where it threatens the existence of the union or the successfully conclude disputes. For this reason union maintenance of union fimds. Whilst union officials may officials are often concerned that industrial action does not wish to use the threat of strike action as a tool to influence accelerate to a point where they no longer have control. an employer, they often do not wish to see this power 274 Labour, Employment and Work in New Zealand 1994 actually unleashed.7 would not be pennitted to present a petition to the C.T.U. conference. It was argued by the C.T.U. National Execu­ In order to strengthen theirposition union officials empha­ tive that such a petition would 'fall outside the C.T.U. sise negotiation and compromise. Rank-and-file members constitution' .13 easily become dependent upon what they~rceive to be the experience and expertise of their officials. 8 Finally, there The decision to discard the December 20th Compact is usually a lack of accountability where trade union proposal occurred without consultation with the union officials are concerned. Many are appointed rather than movement The C.T.U. National Council meetings on elected. Furthennore, it is common for union bureaucrats March 14 and March 15 did not endorse these changes not to be subject to any regular, effective accountability. which had been decided upon by the C.T.U.leadership.l4 This limits the extent to which it is possible to keep their On April3, the C.T.U. conference was held at which two conservatism in check. 9 The thesis of bureaucratic con­ resolutions were put to the meeting. The first was proposed servatism helps us to understand the course of the struggle by the C. T.U. national executive which called for coopera­ over the Employment Contracts Act tion between the C.T.U. and the Government. The second was proposed by the Service Workers Federation. It fa­ The policy approach of the C.T.U. voured a campaign aimed at def~ting the economic agenda of the Business Roundtable. During the conference lunch­ Since its inception in 1987 the C.T.U. has adopted a break it was arranged that the C.T.U. National Executive conciliatory approach towards both the government and would support the Service Wolkers Federation proposal in employers. Probably the most obvious example of this retmn for the Service Workers Federation support for the prior to the struggle over the Employment Contracts Bill National Executive's Compact resolution.15- was the manoeuvring that occurred around the Compact The Compact was a proposed agieement between the In July 1990 five officials from the C.T.U. National Government, employers and unions initially and later Executive began meeting regularly with Helen C~ then between the Government and unions only. In its final the Labour Government's Minister of Labour. Of the five fonn, the compact, entitled the 'Agreement for Growth' officials, Ken Douglas, Angela Fonlkes and Ron Burgess provided for a ceiling on wage settlements in retmn for a were to be permanently involved in negotiations with the reduction in interest rates and the promise of talks between Compact Council. The remaining two officials were to be representatives of Government, unions and business. chosen by the first three from the C.T.U. National Execu­ tive. Furthermore, the identity of these officials were not Whilst it is not possible here to discuss this issue in depth, disclosed to the C.T.U. National Council, nor did the there are a number of aspects of the negotiation that should delegation report back to the National Council regarding be noted. The first problem area was the fact that the what matters were discussed.l6 C.T.U. pamphlet 'Towards a Compact' was distributed only among trade union officials and not the rank-and-file. The evidence suggests a measure of secrecy in the ap­ Thus, as early as March 1988, there was an absence of proachoftheC.T.U.leadershiptotheCompact Similarly, communication between the C.T.U. leadership and its it seems likely that truly open debate was discouraged in members.1 0 At a meeting in Christchurch on May 24 favour of statements that merely supported the Compact eighty union officials and job delegates requested that There can be no doubt that the C.T.U. leadership was there should be more information available about the negligent in its failure to communicate effectively with its Compact plus the opportunity for open debate about the members. They declined to fight the right wing policies of subject In W aikato, Bill Andersen and other officials from the Labour Government preferring instead an offer of the Drivers Union refused the local anti-Compact group minimal consultation in the policy-making process. The the opportunity to address stop-work meetings. This is importance placed by the C.T.U. on the Compact and, evidence of the unwillingness of the C.T.U. leadership to indeed. its approach towards securing the Compact is allow open debate.11 indicative of bureaucratic conservatism. In mid-1989, the Northern Distribution Union held stop­ The struggle over the Employment Contracts work meetings at which the Compact was discussed. A Act resolution of limited support for the Compact, which had passed D . been at theN U. delegates conference, was put to In my MA thesis, 'The Struggle For and Against the ECA these stop work meetings The resolution was carried on a 1987 -1991" a theoretical framework based on Marxist show ofhands.