WAIHI MINERS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 71, 24 March 1919, Page 9

WAIHI MINERS' DISPUTE.

jjjt W. E. PARKY EXPLAINS. A PECULIAR POSITION. In connection with the trouble at tfaibi a representative of the "Auckland Star" had a chat this morning with Mr. W. E. Parry, who recently regjcmed the position of secretary of the ■jfinere' Federation of New Zealand. Mr. Parry wa s also representative of the Miners' Federation at that conference jt Waihi when the agreement was arrived at. "I was struck," said Mr. Parry, "by the interview which appeared in the 'Auckland Star' upon the return of Mr. T. Harle Giles, Conciliation Commissioner, from 'Waihi. That ppntleman is reported to have said, 'These eipht men asked mc straight out to put them ri-iht in the eyes of member? of the union, and the public generally-' As cue 'vho was at that conference and who understood something about that incident. T want to put the positi n n. -o lir as the union is concerned, rijrht in the pyea of the public generally. WVipti that is done I feel sure that it will give quite a different complexion to the question of the dispute. "In 1912 t> strike was precipitated at ■\Vaihi by the Miner-' ["ninn, winch was a bona-'idr union, registered under the Trades tnions Act. Another organisation had been registered under the Arbitrat on Act, :ind as the original Miners' rin.ni ohjeoted. a strike was declared, which li-tc,l for si\ months and cost about C3O.IHW. The bona-fide union. 1 may say. was defeated by those eight, ni'n and others >\ ith them, who had formed what 1 term n spurious union, because there w :l > one already in existence. The men in question for tre most part he].! office in the union formed under the Arbitration Act, but ljtcr nn election of officers took place at which rlicv were defeated.

■'They t'ne:i roisined from the organisation -.v!:i h was of their own making. The public have not boon told that it ivii- tin , union t' psp men helped to form which th. v re-ijned from. What is more, tii'i-t , ni'vi siill claim exemption from memlier.-liip of the union which they formel under the Arbitration Aot. The public have not hern told that the original Minor-' I'nion is still in existence at Waihi. and is registered under the Trad.'. I'nioii Act, also that it is not from tliHi union those men claim exemption. Nor have the public been told that t:ic-e men retired from the union they were instrumental in forming long before the recent conference between employers and representatives of the union. The Conciliation Commi«?ioner'B statement convi-Vri the impression .hat the delesati , ?. nf the union agreed to nut these el'jht men out of the organisation, liut the real fact of the matter is that tliev lvi.] censed to he member* long before that time. They refused to join tiie union asain. nnd it was as a result of their Inconsistent, and what 1 eonsiler nl-<tinpte attitude, that the cause for them taking up that position was discussed. Let inp sky the main reason for the matter being raised was to fret from the pnmloyers something definite as to n-hrtber they were uniler any oblig-i----tinri to these men for-t'ioir faithfulness durinjr t'.;e strike of l<o2. Our miirls. .re.-t.on that point. The enWo-verfc dr-fiiiiteh- stated that they ■would not break their agreement with those men. 'When we got that definite statptnpnt from the employers, further discussion of the inattpr poascd. and apparently that discussion was written into the agreement. The matter was laid at rest as fur as the union delegates were concerned. " Now these men come forward in their present stand on the ground that the employers refused to force them to join the union when the conference took place. What a flimsy pretext! In my opinion their conduct was absolutely inconsistent with tlie administration of the Arbitration Act, which was formed for lie pnrnose of encouraging trades union-. There annears to have been an understandino that these men should he exempted from joining or remaining in any union which they themselves considered to b< , danaenma to their inter-

ests. 1 claim that they entered into an arrangement for the purpose of defeating tlie object of bona fide trade union-

ism. The reason that exemption was not brought before the members of the Union after tlie recent conference, was because the matter was not considered of sufficient importance to mention. The matter is now in the hands of the Miuer' s Federation.