Bill to amend strike laws
SOME trade unions were accused by the Minister for Commerce, Industry and Labour, Ratu Edward Cakobau, of having “ignored their responsibilities to Fiji and to their fellow workers” on Wednesday, April 3, 1968.
The Fiji Times reported on Thursday, April 4, 1968, that Ratu Edward, who was moving the second reading of a Bill to amend the Trade Dispute (Arbitration Inquiry and Settlement) Ordinance in the Legislative Council, called their actions “quite insupportable”.
The Bill would ban strikes by essential service workers for any reason other than a trade dispute with an employer.
He said under the law at the time, a collective withdrawal of labour was made lawful because the ordinance allowed it for any reason.
The provision was too wide as it permitted a withdrawal for almost anything – French nuclear tests or even the price of fish in Denmark, said Ratu Edward.
It was proposed to change the law as far as it concerned essential services which included water, electricity, health, sanitary, telecommunications, meteorological, air traffic control and crash fire services.
“The present law provides that if a group of persons in an essential service wish to withdraw their labour collectively, they must give 28 days’ notice in writing to the Commissioner of Labour and to the employer.
“Once 28 days’ notice has
expired, they must go on strike at any time until they withdraw their notice. In other words, the threat to strike can hang over the heads of employers indefinitely.”
Instancing the possibility of the crash fire services at Nadi Airport going on a sympathy strike last year, the minister said that had the strike taken place, Fiji would have felt the consequences for some considerable time, particularly in the tourist industry.
It would have affected Fiji’s relations with overseas countries in regard to air safety.
Ratu Edward said the new measure would still allow a large measure of freedom to trade unions in regard to their fundamental rights.
The only other speaker, trade union secretary Sakiasi Waqanivavalagi (North-West Viti Levu), said the Bill did not rob essential service workers of the right to strike but it restricted them.
The reason for the amendment was the irresponsibility shown by one union, in particular.