Herald union fight settled but colleagues estranged and court battle still to come

By Nick Smith

Friday 21st September 2001

Lawyers from both sides of the industrial dispute involving the New Zealand Herald are lining up for the next battle - in the Employment Court.

The strike is over but issues from the industrial dispute, including allegations of bad-faith bargaining and attempted union sabotage, will be played out in court before the end of the year.

It has been a pyrrhic victory for both the management and its unionised workforce.

Managers are now considering calling in industrial counsellors, such is the entrenched bitterness staff feel on both sides of the fence, with some colleagues now unable to work together.

The result from the first major industrial dispute in the wake of the Employment Relations Act is also uncertain after a battle that saw businesses and the union movement generally lining up to trade blows across the picket line. It took the direct intervention of the Council of Trade Unions at a potentially violent protest at the Herald's printing press to force a compromise.

The strike by more than 100 staff may be over but untold damage has been inflicted on the reputation of the great-grandmother of New Zealand newspapers.

Also, the striking journalists suffered the humiliation of being ignored by media and the public and had to settle for far less than union members bargained for.

So what was it about? Despite denials by editor-in-chief Gavin Ellis, the dispute was undoubtedly about an attempt to smash the union.

Managers wanted to ring-fence a large portion of its workforce from collective union affiliation and its stance was at times to prevent new employees from joining the group employment contract.

Management eventually settled for 22 fixed positions outside the collective and allowed existing salaried staff to remain part of the contract covering union employees.

But all new employees have a choice: Collective contract or salary, a salary paying several thousand dollars above what a union chapel member can earn.

Money was never an issue in this dispute, the settlement allowing 2% this year and 2.5% next year, compared with the union demand of 3%.

The industrial dispute was forced by the new labour laws and the interpretation that both sides brought to the new legislation.

Senior managers at the paper, owned by Irish media magnate Sir Anthony O'Reilly, received calls by other major business figures to hold fast against its unionised workforce for the sake of all corporates.

Similarly, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union for the first time took a strong stance, despite criticism from journalists about the naivety of its tactics.

In essence, both sides believed they could not afford to lose the battle, forcing a compromise neither side was happy with.

Comments from our readers

No comments yet