Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

UNIONISTS V. NON-UNIONISTS.

A charge of inconsistency was levelled against the Minister of RaihVavs (Hon. Air Millar).

The matter was brought up by Mr G. Smith (Patca), who was speaking in ro ference to the discontent felt by niemberj of the Patea branch at the provision ol tbe award they are at present working under. He contended that since the strike m December last the only alteration had been improvement in the hours of work, but they got no increase in wages by the agreement. Consequently they had cancelled their registration under the Arbitration Act, and had refused to, and would not, sign the present agreement. Any proposals their branch had to make, however, they were willing to submit to the federation. Continuing, Mr Smith said that another matter on which feeling was strong in Patea was that the railway men who had stm.'k ill sympathy with the waterside workers had not been reinstated, although inference had been giv?n that they would be. Instead, "blacklegs" had been employed, and these would not join or assist the union. Application had been made to the Hon. Mr Millar, who said that he would not recognise any union. Tho unionists now objected to working alongside Government "blacklegs." and before the matter was settled it would become a question of unionists against nonunionist.). Mr Boardman (Auckland) said that they had it the Minister for Railways protected one class in Lyttelton, and now they heard he would not recognise a union in another place. He thought they should protest an the matter. Finally, a motion waw put by Mr Canham (Auckland) to the effect that a letter should be sent to the Minister of Railways protesting against his inconsistency in protecting one cla3s in Lyttelton, and enabling them to form a close corporation, and assisting nonunionists in Patea by refusing to recognise any union there. The motion was carried, with thp added clause that thfc Minister should be asked to reinstate the men dismissed in Patea.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19110905.2.34

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 211, 5 September 1911, Page 5

Word Count
331

UNIONISTS V. NON-UNIONISTS. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 211, 5 September 1911, Page 5

UNIONISTS V. NON-UNIONISTS. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 211, 5 September 1911, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert