PRESS EXCLUDED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 67, Issue 160, 19 April 1947, Page 5

PRESS EXCLUDED

WANGANELLA TRIBUNAL EMPLOYERS’ ASSESSORS WALK OUT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, April IS. Heated scenes occurred at the Wanganella tribunal this morning when the national secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union-(Mr T. Hill), pounding the table and raising his voice, accused the employers of having issued an ultimatum. If the employers desired ultimatums, he declared, he would not be backward in accepting one for those whom he represented. It had been announced by the managing secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (Mr C. G. Camp), that the employers desired no misunderstanding about their contention that the inquiry should, be open to the press and the public. “We are not prepared to sit on this tribunal unless it is open to the press and public except when we are deliberating,” said Mr Camp. Mr Hill said he wished it to be understood that there could be an ultimatum to this effect that “all interested workers” could cease operations until the tribunal reached a decision. He then proceeded to criticise the press which, he said, was not present at the proceedings m the interests of r those whom he represented. Experience in different countries showed that the press had not assisted in settling industrial disputes. If the employers had to pay for the space which they had been given in the press, a considerable sum would be involved. At one stage, when heated words were passing, the secretary of the Engineers’ Union (Mr C. G. Caswell), said, “Let’s get on with the settlement of this dispute; for Reaven’s sake.” He expressed the opinion that political capital was being made, and said that no threats were wanted from the employers’ side. Return to Work Suggested When the sitting began the chairman (Mr A. B. Ritchie, a Conciliation Commissioner) said there was a suggestion that evidence should be taken first to enable workers to return to their duties, and the secretary of the Boilermakers’ Union (Mr P. E. Warner) asked for a ruling on the question of going into committee. Mr Camp said the employers were prepared to go into committee only when he tribunal was deliberating. Mr Hill declared that for days Mr Camp had told the country what was going to be done and that the employers were going to issue their own press statements. “We hear a lot about dictatorship. and I am just about the most democratic fellow in the world,’’ said Mr Hill. , - It would be ridiculous to go into committee unless there were real reasons, said the chairman, and he would like evidence to go to the public. To close the proceedings would mean preparation of both sides of statements about what had occurred. Mr Hill moved “on behalf of the workers” that the tribunal go into committee. The tribunal would decide when the press entered or left. Questioning the authority of the tribunal or the chairman to go into committee, Mr Camp demanded: “Show me anv regulationshow me any Act.” When Mr Caswell referred to threats by the employers, Mr Camp retorted: “There are no threats.” He had been told by the Minister that the proceedings would continue even if he did not attend, said Mr Warner, who expected that the employers should be in the same position if they- did not attend. After the chairman expressed, the view that the tribunal had authority under the regulations to decide upon open - or private hearings, Mr Camp said the employers were not prepared to sit unless proceedings were open while evidence was being submitted. When the tribunal resumed in committee after the luncheon adjournment the employers’ asses* - sors, after a brief deliberation, walked out of the room. The chairman then notified the assors for the workers to hold themselves in readiness to proceed with the inquiry at 10.30 a.m. on Monday. After their withdrawal from the room, Mr Camp gave a statement setting forth the reasons for the action oTlhe‘employers’ assessors. While in committee, he said, the emplovers endeavoured to point out to the workers’ representatives the grave situation which might arise if both public and Press were to be excluded, and incidentally and because of a statement appearing in the Press they suggested that advocates be engaged by both employers and workers to make submissions to the tribunal, thus leaving the members of the tribunal free to exercise their judicial functions, as was intended by the Minister when he appointed them under the regulations. The employers contended that it was manifestly absurd to expect the members of a judicial body to consider the dispute in a dispassionate and judicial manner and at the same time to act as advocates. The two functions were mutually exclusive and were the antithesis of each other. • ; As the workers’ representatives would not permit the inquiry to be made public, or the press to he. admitted, and in the light of the commissioner’s statement that the proceedings should he made public, we withdraw. It appeared to the employers that the workers were afraid of publicity. In these circumtsances we are not prepared to he a party to Star Chamber methods. The legal aspects will he examined.” Right to Question Ruling Asked if he wished to make any statement on the position which had arisen, Mr C. G. Caskell, one of the assessors for the workers, said: “No. The assessors for the employers have the right to question the chairman’s ruling if they desire to do so.” “The employers havp resorted -to direct action,” said Mr Hill when the . employers’ statement was. referred to him to-night. “It was they who ask- - ed for the tribunal—not the workers. Now the employers have violated all constitutional procedure by not ac-. cepting the decision of the. chairman.” *