"NO DISPUTE."

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18603, 30 January 1926, Page 14

"NO DISPUTE."

FREEZING WORKS TROUBLE. ABORTIVE CONFERENCE. COMPANIES DEFINE THEIR POSITION. The conference called by the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr W. H. HagI ger) between representatives of the various Canterbury freezing companies and the Canterbury Freezing Workers' Union to discuss tlie present industrial trouble, took place last night, but proved abortive. The Commissioner said that the dispute was one for which there was no legal remedy. He traversed the various events which had led up to the trouble and, proceeding, said that he thought before he went to Dunedin a little time ago that the trouble would have been settled in a day or two, but on his return he was disappointed to find that such was not the ease. He haa called the conference because he thought that neither _ the farmers not the workers ecu Id afford to allow tlio present position to continue. Unfortunately, he had no order paper to put before the conference, but he trusted that someone would be prepared to open the proceedings, following which some useful discussion might take place, out of which good might come. He desired to inform the conference that at the time he' had called the meeting he was not aware that the Union had put in an application for increased wages. Mr H. C. Revell, president of the Union, congratulated the Commissions on his efforts to effect a settlement. He stated that it was considered by the workers that if the Arbitration Court's recent pronouncement concerning the cost of living was to apply' to any workers it would surely; apply to those employed in the freezing industry. However, it was learned that this v;as not the case, and after the workers had exhausted every means at their disposal to bring about a settlement. the present trouble had arisen. Hie Union was represented at the conference by accredited representatives, who were empowered to bring about a settlement if it could be arranged, and he wanted to. know if the representatives of the employers were in a simi- i lar position. He hoped that the other' side would be prepared to lay all its cards on the table as the workers' representatives were ready to do. No Increase In Wages. The Commissioner to the companies' representatives: What do you sa.y, gentlemen? _ Sir Francis Boys: I would ask you to read a letter we sent in reply to your invitation to attend the conference. The Commissioner read the letter, which was as follows: Christcliurch, Jan. 28th,_ 1925. The Conciliation Commissioner, Christchurcli—Dear Sir: On behalf of the Canterbury Freezing Companies, I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your summons to a conference on the 29th instant at 7.30 p.m ; The representatives of the companies, out of courtesy to yourself, will attend, but before doing so, wish to make it absolutely clear that the _ companies do not desire any alteration in the present award in the direction of an increase in wages; moreover, they are not aware that any authority has any power to -vary the award during its currency without the consent of both parties, which in the present instance has not been obtained. The letter was signed by the N.Z. Refrigerating Co., Ltd., the Canterbury Frozen Meat Co., Ltd., Thos. Borthwick and Sons (Australia), Ltd., North Canterbury Sheep-farmers'. Cooperative Freezing Co., Ltd. Breach of Awaid. Sir Francis Boys: A great deal haa been said about the dispute, but there is in fact no dispute. The position is that we are prepared to carry out the terms and conditions of the existing award while the slaughtermen, instigated by their Union, decline to do so. The action of the slaughtermen, backed by their Union, in demanding higher rates than thosfl' granted by the award, and committing breaches of the award by go-slow and other irritation tactics, does not constitute a dispute, but is clearly a'nd plainly a broach cf the award, and should be dealt with as such by the proper authorities. Mr Revell objected to.the statement that. the slaughtermen had acted as they had at the instigation of the Union, maintaining that it was not correct. As far ,as he could see, he continued, there was no good to be gained by continuing the conference as the other side wa,s not prepared to discuss the dispute at all. He maintained that, despite what was said to the contrary there was a dispute. The position was that the Union's representatives hadcome to the proceedings prepared to effect a settlement while the other side was not. They were not sincere about, the matter. He was of the opinion that the employees had as logical a right to claim that there was a dispute as the companies were'entitled to say that there was not. Readjustment Suggested. After some further discussion, the Commissioner suggested that an application should be made for a readjustment of wages, the matter to come before the Court at the end of the present season in time for the nest season. Sir Francis Boys said that the position _ was that the representatives on his side of the table could not bind the whole of the companies in the Dominion. They could speak only on behalf of the four Canterbury companies who had signed the letter in reply to. the Commissioner's invitation to attend the proceedings. "The matter cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion," he added, "and no one knows that belter than the Union." Mr Revell said thai he could not agree with what Sir Francis Boys had said about not being able to bind the employers ia other parts of the Dominion. He pointed out that the company Sir Francis represented, for instance, had branches m other parts of New Zealand. He asserted that Sir Francis' remarks were that he was merely side-tracking the issue before the conference. Sir Francis: I am not in the habit of being futile cr of side-tracking. The Commissioner said that he had forwarded the invitation to attend the conference to the • Freszirig Works Association. In_ answer to a question by the Commissioner as to whether the employers would be prepared to join with the Union in applying to the Court for an adjustment of wages, Sir Francis said that he could not bind all the companies. The Commissioner: Are you prepared to speak for the Canterbury companies ? Sir Francis: No matter , affecting a Dominion award can be ingde to apply to Canterbury only. Mr Revell: Do you think it is any good to proceed further? • J, 6 suggestion of the Commissioner the representatives of the Unk-fi retired to confer with him, and on their return the Commissioner said that owing to the fact that the employers' representatives had stated their inability to speak on behalf of all the companies, and that owing also to the fact

that there was no legal dispute, he could not see any way to deal with the difficulty unless someone present could bring forward some other suggestion. There being no further, proposals-the' Commissioner declared the proceedings to he abortive. , Producers' Interests. Mr Re veil said that he was exceedingly sorry that the Commissioner s efforts had not met' with the success they deserved. It was clear, however, that the other side was prepared to stonewall and to impose further inconvenience on the producers. Sir Francis Boys said that tiio marks concerning stonewalling were quite uncalled for. "We thank yqu for doinff your duty," he said to the Commissioner, "and are sorry the matter has not been cleared up, but the methods you have adopted have been somowhat misdirected, nevertheless wo thank you." He added that it was rather amusing to liepr the workers representatives championing the producers, as the whole of the trouble was caused by the workers. As a matter or fact the producers were behind the companies in the matter, and as long as such was the case the companies' would continue to act as they were at present. t ■ ' . The Commissioner expressed his regret that his efforts to effect a settlement had proved unsuccessful. However he would point out that many difficulties had been settled by a. talk round-the table when principals were got together. In the qircumstanoes it would be useless for liim to proceed further; He was glad that there had been no personal references made at the conference, and he tinsted that the trouble would soon be settled. Companies' Position.

The following statement setting out tho companies' position was handed to a representative of "The Press" at the termination of the proceedings "AVe have outlined the position of the Unions as instigating disaffection, and would only contrast this with our own attitude. "In the award it is stated that' the essence of the award is that the work of the employer shall always proceed in the customary manner and shall not on any account nhatsover be impeded. This is part and parcel of the award and is all that we are asking for. "So far as we know the Union officially appeared in this on January 21st when, over Mr Ellis's signature, they issued a statement accusing the companies of owing the men an increase in wages, demanding the amendment of the award, and temng the men that they were entitled to these increased wages and that the companies were sheltering behind a legal (|uibble. "Il ! anyone has any knowledge of the correct position we will leave him to judge of the truth of any one of these four statements. _ . "It is quite clear that, m view of the terms of this circular, the Union cannot dissociate itself from a course of action wheih, during the past few weeks, has been taken by the slaughtermen in various of the Canterbury works. Since the first week of the season in Canterbury the position s at the respective works lias been extremely unsatisfactory owing to the action of the slaughtermen in the adoption of a 'go-slow' policy and the limitation imposed upon the employment of any further slaughtermen. There are num. bers of these rt&n walking the streets in search of a job, who. owing to the intimidation' of the Unions, dare not take the places which have been reserved for them at their own request. It is stated that this action is bems taken on instructions from the Central Committee. As to these instructions we have, of course, no knowledge, but in rierr of the circular over Mr Ellis s signature, to which we have already referred, we do not think that the Union can disclaim responsibility for these acts."