"DIRECT ACTION."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 269, 12 November 1937, Page 11

"DIRECT ACTION."

STAY-IN STRIKE.

OPPOSITION CHARGES.

POLICE PROTECTION DENIED.

(By Telegraph.— Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday.

The Auckland freezing workers stayin strike of last year was again mentioned in the House of Representatives to-day. It was during the discussion on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) contending that it had been clearly shown that the Minister of Labour, Mr. Armstrong, and the Government were parties to the repudiation of an award made by the Arbitration Court. Mr. Bodkin said it had been claimed by a previous speaker that the Government stood for orderly progress and arbitration, but that was not the spirit of the most influential trade unions and there was evidence that the Government supported one of them in a policy contrary to the arbitration laws and the spirit of the legislation. There were cases of workers refusing to go to the Court notwithstanding that the employers were most anxious to do so. These workers preferred direct action.

Powerful Union. Last year there was a striking illustration of a powerful union that went to the Court and secured an award which it immediately repudiated. The Government had undoubtedly given it both direct and moral support, said Mr. Bodkin. Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden): Wlmt union? Mr. Bodkin: The Slaughtermen's Union. Hp asserted that the resolution passed at the meeting of the workers and employers at which Mr. Armstrong presided clearly indicated 'that the Minister and the Government • were parties to the repudiation of the award. "That was not a case of the Government standing for orderly methods and arbitration," declared Mr. Bodkin. "It was direct support, and the member for Waitemata (Mr. W. J. Lyon) took, I believe, an active part in the negotiations and urged the men to return to work and observe the law, probably hoping that the Government would be able to bring pressure to bear on the employers to effect a compromise. Certainly the Government did not stand four square behind the award." Mr. Bodkin added that the whole principle that permeated the larger and more influential trade unions was definitely one of force. To Kemove Anomaly. Mr. W. .T. Lyon (Government, Waitemata) said Mr. Bodkin had merely given the facts that suited his side of the case and had omitted matters that would give the public an entirely different understanding of the position. If an award were made in the course of a rush of Court work and it was found that it contained something that made it obviously unjust to one section of the employers, and there was no court of appeal, what was the duty of the Minister? he asked. If there was an injustice tliat was causing friction it wu obviously the job of the Minister to see that the anomaly was removed.