BOYCOTT TALK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 219, 16 September 1938, Page 5

BOYCOTT TALK.

AUCKLAND BAKERS. COST OF TRIBUNAL. OPPOSITION CRITICISM. COMPULSORY UNIONISM. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. "If compulsory unionism is being utilised to intimidate employers it will be a sorry day for New Zealand," declared Mr. S. O. Holland (National. Christehurch North), when he had made a protest in the House of Representatives la«t night against the failute of the Government to prosecute certain Auckland trade unionists who took part in what he alleged was an illegal strike. Discussing a vote of £32 for the expense* of the tribunal which investigated the recent bakers' dispute in Auckland, Mr. Holland remarked that the amount was small, but a big principle was involved. A baker, after consulting the Labour Department, dismissed one of hia employees. There was a strike, though the item on the estimates called it "cessation of employment." After the Minister of Labour had intervened unsuccessfully a tribunal was appointed, consisting of a magistrate and one or two Departmental officers, expensive men, who delivered themeelves of a 12page judgment.

Mr. Fraser, Minister of Education: Obviously cheap at the price. Mr. Holland: Yes, a pretty cheap trip if they could pay their salaries and expenees for £32. This tribunal, he continued, found that the employer concerned had good reason for dismissing the employee, and r the union concerned then said: "We won't call for any strike, but we will put on a boycott." Mr. Fraser: You know what the Minister said? Mr. Holland: But what did the Minister do?

The Auckland Hotel Workers' Union, Mr. Holland continued, put on a boycott on an hotel because it bought bread from a certain baker. He hoped the Minister would learn at least one lesson from the experience and that was that he should not interfere with the eouree of the law because it produced the position that if workers did not get what they wanted there was a boycott. "Remark* Uncalled For." "These remarks are quite uncalled for," protested the Minuter of Labour, Mr. Armstrong. "I know all about the incident. I have investigated it. The Federation of Labour denies all knowledge of it. A circular was sent out by the secretary of the Auckland organisation suggesting that the bread of one particular firm should not be purchased, but I never beard of anybody being boycotted because they bought that man's bread. From what I can gather he has lost nothing at all by it. I hardly think any sensible; section of the community, Whether trade unionists or not, would be influenced by propaganda of that sort. If they are, then they are ' not serving the beet interests of Labour ■ or any other movement, and no Minister, whether he belonged to the National party or any other, could come down any heavier than I would myself—and I would do. it in the interests of the movement for which I have stood all my life—if gangster business is carried out in Auckland to the extent the honourable gentleman suggested," said Mr. Armstrong with emphasis. "It will 'be put down with a very firm hand by this Government."

Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Pa tea): What methods did you adopt! Hold up of Basinets. The Minister explained that the man was dismissed by hie employer, amd it was alleged it wae due to his trade union activity, but whether this was so was impossible to prove. The Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to deal with a case of that kind. There wae a hold-up of the employer's business, and he went to Auckland and inquired into the dispute. He was perfectly satisfied on the evidence of the men themselves that no tribunal would uphold them. Nevertheless, he suggested to the Government —and it approved—the appointment of a tribunal to investigate the position. "1 cannot be responsible for irresponsible people," added Mr. Armstrong, "but if they are going to put into operation a policy of boycott it is nothing ehort oi blackmail, and I look upon blackmail as one of the worst crimes a 1 person can commit. That ie what I have said to them. I am advised by the Crown Law officers that it is decidedly a breach of the law, but that we have no power to test'it out. The only person who has the right to prosecute is tJie individual concerned. He would be entitled to damages if he proved that his business was damaged." Workers Were Wrong. Mr. Holland: Was it art illegal strike? The Minister declared it wae wrong for workers to take up that attitude, particularly in New Zealand, where there, wan a constitutional method of settling disputes. "But what »I out boycott? that have been practised by unscrupulous employers as long back as I can remember?" continued the Minister. "For every industrial dispute in this country or any complaint against any section of workers, there are 50 or 60 breaches of the law by employers, end not one word of protest uttered from the other side. Official records prove it conclusively, and I put it down at a low estimate."

The Chairman of Committees (Mr. E. J. Howard): You are {jetting a long way from these estimates. The Minister repeated that, at a low estimate, for every breach by a worker there were 50 or 60 by employers, though thie did not justify law-breaking boycotts or defying the arbitration law of the country. Mr. Dickie: Hut what are you going to do againiet these men who struck? Mr. Parry, Minister of Internal Affairs: Shoot them, I suppose. (Laughter.) Mr. Armstrong: Ar a matter of fact, I ran quote four or five thousand in the last year or so of breaches of the law bv employers, and they have not been prosecuted. Mr. Dickie: That is your fault. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): Why uot ? The Minister. Because they were «o numerous. You would have to add materially to the number of magistrates and judge* on the Bench.