UNEMPLOYED AND UNIONS.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19545, 15 February 1929, Page 15

UNEMPLOYED AND UNIONS.

TO THE EDITOB OT THE PRESS Sir, —In your correspondence columns of February 14th appears a letter over the name of D. Scott, charging me that whilst in the employ of the Christchurch City Council lie was "compelled to join his Union on Dyers road, Woolston, on September 15th, 1927. This job was carried out under the City Council's £25,000 Relief of Unemployment Loan." 1 am pleased that Mr Scott has at last come out in the open and given ine a definite charge to reply to. These charges against myself started in a circular electioneering paper entitled the "Newsletter," issued October 27th, 1928, and stated, inter alia, that a "prominent Christchurch Citineii" had written to the Prime Minister stating "that a labour secretary came along to men on relief works on their second day of engagement ,and demanded dues 10s apiece, and also told them, in no uncertain terms, that, unless they immediately paid twelve months dues to the Union that he would see they got no further work. Their morale being low, these chaps paid up." I wrote to the Prime Minister giving a definite denial to this scurrilous statement and also forwarded to him a copy of our registered rules, which showed that the most the Union could charge at the time of joining up was an entrance fee of ss, and if he came in on a clearanoe card from another Union only 2s 6d contributions ahead was all the man joining had to pay. Copies of this reply I sent to the local papers, most of whom published the same. This letter of Mr Scott's reminds me of that saying "The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse." From a charge of brutally demanding 10s and a year's subscriptions, which is a further 20s. it_ has come down to a-hat ? Mr Scott joined this Union on a clearance card from the Freezers' Union and paid the sum of 2s (3d. This was on September 15th, 1927, and he made no further payment until November 28th, 1928. fifteen months later, when he paid the sum of 4s 6d. Not much exploiting in this, Mr Editor. Not much support for the statement of ]os and a further 12 months' dues or the secretary would see he got no further work.

But there is a further side to this story that, as it is desirable that further publicity should be given to this unfounded charge, should also be given in fairness to this Union and its secretary. (Bear in -mind that Mr Scott had paid the exorbitant sum of 2s 6d into the Union's coffers.) I hare in my possession copies of correspondence that took place between myself and the Christchnrch City Council covering a period of about three months wherein I was endavouring to get to Mr Scott and others the restitution of the family bonus. This correspondence took place between October, 1927, and January, 1928, and I was finally successful in getting the bonus restored and paid to these men. I have in my possession copy of a letter which I sent to Mr Scott, dated January 31st, 1928, informing him that the bonus was restored and advising that he call on the City Treasurer and he would receive that amount. Mr Scott never replied to this. Mr Scott had then left the employ of the Council, and he was, I understand, engaged at the freezing works, and it was only the other night when I taxed him with it that he informed me that he had called and received the sum of £3 16s. Not a bad investment for the sum of 2s 6<L Not much exploiting about that, Mr Editor. I mention this case of Mr Scott receiving the family bonus because I have letters in my possession from the City Council which state: "The finance Committee decided to pay the bonus to men employed on waterworks and relief loan works who were eligible, but not to men employed on 'unemployed relief works' paid by public subscriptions." Now we come to the status of the Dyer's road job at the time Mr Scott joined this Union. The Mayor (Kev. J. K. Archer), in an interview with a "Sun" reporter, and reported in that paper July 14th, 1927, said: "In the nrst place the committee has received legal advice that if unemployed men are set to work on any City Council enter* prise, they must be treated as casual employees and paid the award rates. So we just cannot help ourselves." Further, in an article on unemployment in the "Lyttelton Times," July Bth, 1928, dealing with a statement made by Mr Hunter, the chairman of the Works Committee, referring to a elaim made made by myself that certain relief work then being carried out should be carried out under the award, "The Mayor said that the City Treasurer had informed him that the City Council could pay any Wages it liked." Also, "Mr Bailey said that certain formalities were required to be | carried out in connexion with the matter." Mr Bailey was, and is. the officer in charge of the Labour Department her«, and I infer that he was referring to Clause 155, sub clause (b) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which states: "The provision of any award or industrial agreement . . . shall not apply to or affect any local authority or public bodv in respect of anv relief work carried out by special resolution of such local authority or public body " T contended, and do still so contend, that, at the time Mr Scott joined our Union no such special resolution had been passed by the City Conncil in respect to ! Over's road iob Therefore, at that time, Dyer's road came under the operations of the General Labourers' Award. Further, relief work, as generally understood «ind carried out in Christehurch. meant work in rotation generally a fortnight on nt most and then replaced fvv another nnemoloyed worker. But th<» men on Dver'« rnr>d were kept on "tl the time with the ordinary condition* of emnlovment: that is. those who did not sire satisfaction were discharged. Rn* Mr Scott was- kept on in the Council's emplov nil the time until he left to go to the freezin® works. Dnrin«* the whole of that time he received the award rates laid down under onr award, but Mr Scott thought, snd I presume still think*:, he was entitled to special rates in addition. This tw engineer in charf"© at that time disagreed with, and he did not receive that extra rate. This is the onlv grievance that I can imagine that Mr Scott has against mj-

self, but, if there is, as I strongly suspect, someone behind him in this attack, I would be delighted if they would come out and I will undertake to give them further information that will be of interest to the general public.—Yours, etc., H. WORRALL. Secretary. j I j