LABOUR CIRCULAR

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 192, 16 August 1938, Page 10

LABOUR CIRCULAR

BAKERY INVOLVED.

DISMISSAL OF DRIVER.

APPEAL TO UNIONISTS. The dismissal of a driver employed by the bakery firm of Messrs. George K. Mathieson, Limited, of Auckland, on June 20 last, has been made the subject of a circular eigned by Mr, H. Campbell, secretary of the Auckland Council of the Federation of Labour, and distributed among members of unions nffiliated to that body. This circular, dated August 4, asks: "Why should we. who believe in justice and equity, purchase our bread from bakers who are continually involved in disputes with the union?" . While pointing out thie morning that the word "boycott" is not mentioned in the circular, Mr. Campbell said:

'•We have merely aeked our affiliations to trade with people who are trading with us. That statement has been circulated purely within our own affiliations, and is intended merely for our own members. If it has been given wider publicity than we intended it to have, that is not our fault."

Complaints of Federation. The circular, which is stated by interested parties to be definitely an incitement to boycott, reads as follows:— "Repeated complaint« have been made against the above-mentioned employer by the officials of the Auckland Drivers' Union. First, the union had occasion to complain that the award was not being properly complied with. To enforce this, it was-necessary for the union to have the co-operation of Mathieson's drivers. "Subsequently, allegations were made that a driver had been dismissed by Mathieeon under circumstances implying victimisation. It will be remembered that there wu a hold-up on the job, with a subsequent investigation by the Minister of Labour, who set up a tribunal to investigate the charges made by the union. "The tribunal was presided over by a magistrate, but a great many unionist* object to magistrates presiding over industrial tribunals for the reason that they are, as a class, unsympathetic with the enforcement of industrial laws. Some of their "decision* in cases of breaches of the awards are nothing ehort of a ecandal, and would form a i proper subject for i; .public; inquiry in order to investigate their individual fitness .to -adjudicate on industrial questions. *; ■ ■- - •' '-.' /-;' ■■' .■- * •T«tility" ef Tribunal. "However, the inquiry was held; and a decision given , in favour of Mathieson. Encouraged by this fact, he has now dispensed with another driver who was active on the job in support of his right*. The union, faced with the futility of further magisterial inquiry, had decided to appeal through the Federation of Labour, to the highest court in this country, that being the tribunal of public opinion. - "There is no room, for the suggestion that Mathieson's bread is better that that made by other bakers, and in, these circumstances, why should we, who believe in equity and justice, purchase our bread from bakers who are continually involved in disputes with the union, when there are hundreds of other bakers making equal or better tread, and whose relationship with the trade union movement is 100 per cent? "Wβ feel quite certain that if sufficient publicity is given to this question Mr. Mathieson will find it desirable to remove the causes of complaint, because while workers who purchase Mathieson's bread can easily do without Mathieson, Mathieeon will find it extremely difficult to do without customers. It is up to you to demonstrate that public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. "This has the authority of the Auckland Council of the New.Zealand Federation of Labour. (Signed) H. Campbell, Secretary." Referred to Minister. The officer in charge of the Labour Department, Mr. W. Slaughter, stated this morning that he could not comment on the position. To his knowledge there was no- law in New Zealand to deal, with the question. He had, however, communicated with the Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, last evening in regard to the matter. ■VA , ■ solicitor. , commenting, said also that there was no law to deal with such an action"; but that it was generally regarded as "unethical" in business dealings. :-,.-, .-• . .' The original case arose out of the dismiesal of a driver. The union claimed that there had been victimisation in that the man concerned had been one of those concerned in organising a meeting of drive™, employed by the firm, to consider what action would be taken in regard to certain alleged breaches of the award. A strike resulted subsequently. The Minister of Labour made an inquiry and «• » result a special tribunal was set up. This tribunal consisted" of Mr. S. L. Peterson, S.M., of Hamilton, chairman, Mr. W. Newton, of Wellington, formerly Secretary for Labour, and Mr. 8. Tyson, of Auckland, a former inspector of factories, and its decision was that "Mathieson acted etrictly within his rights, and within the provisions of the award, and to that extent was clearly justified in exercising his rights. ,. Aspects of Case. Officials of the union declined this morning to'make any public statement regarding the dismissal which is the subject of the circular, but one of the drivers stated it arose from the previous dispute, and that the man concerned was another one of the organisers of the original meeting.

Mr. Mathieson is at present engaged in Christchurch, where the Dominion drivers' dispute is in progress, but the secretary of the Auckland Employers' Association, Mr. W. E. Anderson, stated that before the second driver was dismissed Mr. Mathieson consulted an officer of the Labour Department and atao the association, and had been advised that he had good grounds for dismissing the man summarily. In order to inflict no hardship he paid the man a week , , wafts fe tie* of aotie*.