SECOND COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 23, 7 November 1938, Page 6

SECOND COURT

THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM. attitude of the federation. SUGGESTION OF A BOYCOTT. ' (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Has the Federation of Labour declared a boycott of the Second Arbitration Court,' and have the workers’ organisations affiliated to that body fallen in with the ban? These are questions which are being freely asked in industrial circles as a> result of the failure by the Minister of Labour (the Hon. H.’ T. Armstrong) to fill the vacancy on the Court caused by the resignation of the previous workers representative, Mr A. W. Croskery.

A statement made in Auckland that ne present position is due to the attitude of the Federation of Labour, was referred to-day to trade union officials in Christchurch, all of whom refused to confirm or deny the report that the Federation has placed pressure on the unions, and that the officials are restraining them from associating themselves with the Court. Mr G. T. Thurston has been deputy for Mr Croskery ever since the creation of the Second Arbitration Court. It is said that Mr Thurston refused to take Mr Croskery’s place on the Court after he had been communicated with by the Federation of Labour. Mr Thurston declined to comment on the statement when it was referred to him to-day.

“There is nothing coming from me,” Mr Thurston said, when asked for reasons why the attitude of the Federation was being kept a secret. “Let the Court carry on as it is, if it wants to. We are not particularly concerned.. It is also stated that Mr W. E. Sill, of Auckland, declined an invitation from the Minister of Labour to act for the workers after the attitude of the Federation had been made clear to him. Like Mr Thurston, he now refuses to confirm or deny the truth of this statement.

The Minister said to-day that he had seen the'report from Auckland and had no comment to offer, except that he was not particularly concerned whether the workers’ representative acted on the Court or not. It would be better in everybody’s interests if the Court were fully constituted, but the fact that it was below its full personnel did not prevent it from functioning. There was still a great deal of important work that the Court could perform without the assistance of the employees’ representative.