WATERFRONT DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25083, 15 January 1947, Page 6

WATERFRONT DISPUTE

PAMPHLET ISSUED BY UNION “RECKLESS ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT ” (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Jan. U♦‘lf they honestly do not want to split the Labour movement, then it should be possible to show them that actually that is just what they are doing,” said the Minister of Labour (Mr A. McLagan) to-day in reply to statements made by the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union in a pamphlet explaining the union’s attitude to the waterfront dispute. “I am sure it will be to all thinking workers that if the present attack upon the Labour Government receives sufficient support from other unions, a large-scale Labour split and disaster to the Labour movement are inevitable,” said Mr McLagan, who added that the Government was still anxious to have the dispute settled on a just basis and would do everything it could reasonably be expected to do to that end. • 3 * “A more reckless and unfounded attack upon the Labour Government has never been made by any union officials claiming to be supporters of Labour, said the Minister. ■ He described the union’s allegations as absurd and unfounded. The present waterfront dispute was not one, with employers, he said. It was a dispute with the Waterfront Industry Commission, which was a judicial bochr established by the Government, and a fight against the commission was also m* evitably a fight against the Labour Government —a fact that was well known to the authors of the union s pamphlet. , , . ‘♦lt Should be said further that this suicidal attack upon the Labour Gqvernment has been made absolutely unnecessarily and in such a manner as to giye the Government no opportunity to avert it,’’ Mr McLagan continued. “An attack upon the Government was commenced as soon as the commission’s decision was made, and without any attempt by the watersiders representatives to discuss the matter with the Government.

Friendly Settlement Paired “The Government has since then made several efforts to bring about a friendlv settlement of the dispute, but it has “been bluntly rebuffed on each occasion by the watersiders’ representatives, and has been told that the only possible settlement is for it to capitulate completely to the demands made upon it?’ , x -i The Minister said that notwithstanding the blunt rejection of its overtures, the Government was still anxious to bring about a just and amicable settlement of the dispute and its door was still open to the waterside workers representatives at any time when they were willing to discuss further the dispute with the Government and resume normal work. The waterside workers’ representatives were apparently in such haste to enter upqn a fight with tt}e Government that they did not wait to consult their members as to whether the fight should be waged or not, he continued. According to documents issued by the national executive of the Waterside Workers’ Union the national executive “directed” union branches to enter the “suicidal conflict” without first consulting rank and file members. “Apparently even the national council of the union was not consulted before this fateful action was taken. If, as was alleged in a published report of the pamphlet, shipowners are sitting back in their comfortable chairs laughing, they must be laughing at the folly of trade unionists being led into a suicidal attack on the Labour Government,” he said.