FREEZING WORKS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 76, 30 March 1935, Page 11

FREEZING WORKS.

POSITION OF UNION. QUESTION OF RECOGNITION. OFFICIAL STATEMENT MADE. Employees of the Westfiekl Freezing Company, Ltd., held a stop-work meeting on Thursday when the procedure adopted by the Minister of Labour and the Conciliation Commissioner in handling an industrial dispute at Westfield was criticised. A resolution was passed that the imion insist on the right of the workers to arrange conditions of employment by the usual method of collective bargaining, and that the company be notified that all proposals relating to conditions of employment be forwarded through the workers' union. The following official statement was issued by the union:— Improvement Sought. "The Auckland Freezing Workers' Union includes in membership a large number of workers employed at the Westfield freezing worKs. These works are not governed Dy any award or industrial agreement, and, as the conditions existing there at the commencement of the present year were very bad, the men resolved through their union to seek some improvement. A schedule of proposed conditions was drawn up, and in due course forwarded bv the secretary of the union, Mr. W. I(f Sill, to the manager of the Westfield Freezing Company. No reply was received by the union, t but the men in the various departments at the works were invited by their foremen to send a. representative to the works' office at a special time. The men complied with what, in their opinion, amounted to an instruction. "On arrival at the office the respective delegates were surprised to meet other delegates on the same mission. They were met by the works manager and a gentleman known as the 'efficiency expert.' The works manager informed the men that the firm was desirous of improving existing conditions and if the men would make proposals would receive consideration: The men replied that proposals had already been sent to the head office of the firm by their union, and suggested that negotiations bo conducted , through ' that channel. The manager then informed the men that the company would not recognise the union and would only confer with its own employees direct.'

"On another occasTon, the manager, on being asked to meet the union secretary, declined, stating that while he had nothing personally against Mr. Sill, the policy of the company was to ignore professional secretaries and to deaf with its own employees. As'the men could not agree with the attitude of the company, it was decided that the union notify the Minister of Labour of a dispute within the meaning of the provisions of the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, 1013. Provisions in Act. "Jn deciding to proceed under the pro- • ision of this Act the workers thought they would at least be sure of a conference and have the assistance of an "dependent chairman, who might be a bio to arrive at a settlement satisfactory to both parties. "It might here be mentioned." conMnued the statement, "that the Act -irovides that any move toward effecting i settlement must be made within 14 flays. The Minister was notified on February 14, and in due course the Conciliation Commissioner approached the union and suggested a conference on or about March 19. As that date was 18 days after the expiry of the 14 days allowed by the Act," it could not be accepted by the union. -The commissioner then notified the union to appoint tour representatives for a conference to take place on March 4. This date also was too late to comply with the Act. It .vas ultimately agreed to meet on February 25. The union representatives* attended, but the company, in accordance with its stated policy, did not comply with the commissioner's request.

■ "The secretary of the Employers' Association, Mr. W. E. Anderson, appeared on behalf of the company, accompanied by one of the company's clerical staff. Mr. Anderson raised a legal point questioning the right of the •inion to proceed under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. The commissioner stated his inability ?to determine the point and adjourned the proceedings to enable him to submit it to the Crown law officers. Later he informed the union secretary that the dispute was in order. However, after the adjournment the commissioner took no further action oeyond referring the matter back to the -Minister and reporting that he was inable to settle the dispute. Minister's Telegram. "No further action was taken by the .Minister, but on March 0 he sent the following telegram to the union secretary: 'After full consideration of the whole of the circumstances, and in view of the statement made by the employers that they will not depart from the existing conditions in the freezing works, I regret that I am not prepared to refer the case to a disputes committee.' "Thus," continued the union's statement, "six days after the Minister's power to move had expired he stated that he was not prepared to proceed further. The reasons given are most extraordinary. What are the circumstances he refers to? The workers, rightly or wrongly, consider 'they have grievances requiring a remedy. Ihc employers admit there is room for improvement, but decline to recognise the unicii. The union desires to avail itself of the provisions of the statute, but the Conciliation Commissioner makes no effort whatever to carry out the functions of his office, and in these circumstances it was clearly the duty of the Minister to set up a disputes committee in terms of the Act. His statement that tiie employers will not depart from •existing conditions' is the very bes reason possible for setting up a disputes committee, and the union has been deprived of its rights in this connection.