Dialogue: Time lost in strikes, lockouts leaps to 18-month high

By JIM EAGLES

The number of days lost through industrial stoppages increased to an 18-month high in the first three months of this year.

Figures for the second three months are expected to be even higher.

Employers and unions are watching to see whether the increase is a long-term trend or merely a temporary phenomenon as unions and employers come to grips with the new Employment Relations Act (ERA).

Statistics New Zealand work stoppage figures for the March quarter recorded eight major disputes - six strikes and two lockouts - which cost a total of 6206 person-days of work.

That compares with a mere 441 days lost in the December quarter, 1893 in the September quarter, 4956 in the June quarter and 4206 in the previous March quarter.

Time lost through industrial disputes has been dropping since 1998.

Previous jumps - for instance, 7794 days lost in the December 1999 quarter and 11,979 days lost in the June 1998 quarter - proved to be temporary blips.

The big question now is whether the industrial action in the first half of this year is another blip or a sign that the long period of calm is over.

Anne Knowles, executive director of Business New Zealand, formerly the Employers Federation, said she was a little surprised there had been an increase in time lost in the first quarter.

"I would expect the figures to be higher in April, May, June because my impression is that is when most of the activity started building up.

"But we'll have to wait longer to see if it is a trend," she said.

"If we had three to four quarters of increased stoppages that would certainly be a concern."

Ross Wilson, president of the Council of Trade Unions, said that it was only to be expected if the new law resulted in more industrial activity.

"We're putting a lot of effort into educating people about their rights, so it's inevitable there's going to be more activity.

"And where you get activity you're likely to get more strikes and lockouts, though that's certainly not our aim," he said.

"But I don't think we're going to see anything like the upheaval the employers were predicting when the act was passed.

"And it's certainly far too early to say whether there's any sort of significant long-term trend."

Mr Wilson saw the present situation as "parties coming to terms with the ERA and the fact that it does give unions more rights, is resulting in increased union membership and does envisage a return to collective bargaining."

Noting that the first quarter produced two lockouts - the first since June 1999 - he said it seemed some employers were having difficulty with the new industrial environment.

"They now have to relearn about bargaining - rather than having a 'take it or leave it' approach - and how to avoid the sort of situations which you'd like to think would be avoidable in a rational situation."

Ms Knowles also felt the ERA had made industrial action more probable because of the way it tilted the balance towards unions.

"The law gives considerable advantages to unions, including monopoly negotiating powers and giving union members special rights that are not available to non-members.

"In those circumstances there were always likely to be more disputes."

Both sides agreed that one feature of the present industrial scene was a big increase in conflicts over union coverage rather than wages.

They also concurred that the controversial requirement in the act for parties to bargain in good faith was not causing any problems.

"Possibly that is because it is such a new idea that no one wants to be the guinea pig," Ms Knowles said.

"Instead the parties are sorting it out themselves and, where necessary, getting professionals in to help them do so."

Mr Wilson said both unions and employers were using the good faith requirement to reduce the risk of confrontation.

"I know of quite a few cases where, if there are warning signs, one side will put the other on notice about the good faith requirements and it acts as a deterrent."

Another controversial aspect of the new act, the encouragement to return to multi-employer agreements, also seems to have caused few problems.

Ms Knowles said she had not heard of those provisions being applied anywhere in the private sector.

"The ERA specifically provided for existing collective agreements to end prematurely on July 1 to allow for the establishment of multi-employer agreements," she said.

"That was done because the politicians felt there was a big demand on the part of workers to move in that direction.

"But the experience to date suggests that after nine years of single-employer agreements, that has become regarded as a satisfactory norm."