WATERFRONT DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25085, 17 January 1947, Page 6

WATERFRONT DISPUTE

Attitude of Labour Federation STATEMENT BY MR K. BAXTER (P.A.) ’ WELLINGTON, Jan. 16. “In the first place the federation wishes to point out that it has not at any stage attacked the watersiders or their claims,” says a statement issued to-day by Mr K. Baxter, secretary of the Federation of Labour, replying to attacks made upon it by the Waterside Workers’ Union executive. “On the contrary, it has been sympathetic in its attitude to their claims, and has offered to take over the dispute so as to present the claims to the best advantage in*an effort to reach an amicable settlement by negotiation. “To achieve the best results in the interests of waterside workers arid in the interests of the whole community, the federation holds that it is necessary and desirable for* waterside workers first to recommence normal working. “The action of the federation has been grossly misrepresented by statements made in a recent pamphlet issued by the national executive of the New> Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union. That pamphlet states, for example, when discussing talks with the federation, the following:—‘The following briefly sets out the principles, of the compromise: the national secre- 1 tary of the Waterside Workers’ Union to order union members to resume overtime and Saturday morning work forthwith. The watersiders’ national executive arid the Federation of Labour executive would agree on a reasonable basis of settlement of matters in the dispute, and having done so would sign 'a confidential document to be the property of each party, to the effect that if satisfaction of the claims of the watersiders was not achieved by January 14 (at which time the national council of the union was meeting) the national executive of the Federation of Labour would recommend its affiliations to support the action recommended by the watersiders’ council to bring about the desired results. That statement is untrue.’ * “The federation said that it would examine the claims of the watersiders and let them have a written reply. This reply was sent on the following day (December 24) and it was ultimately published in the press on December 30. The statement by the federation said clearly: ‘lt would appear that your executive is asking the Federation of Labour to give a guarantee beforehand as to what will be the decision of the Waterfront Industry Commission on your claims, and that in consideration of receiving such a guarantee your executive will recommend your members to resume normal working. Neither the Federation of Labour nor any other industrial organisation can give such a guarantee-’ “The statement of the watersiders’ case also contains an allegation that secret meetings were held. This is untrue also. Letter to Union Secretary “To clear this point completely it is necessary to reiterate a statement made in a letter which was sent to the secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Union on January 6, which stated: ‘A. meeting of the national executive of the New Zealand Federation of Labour was held on January 6 at the Trades Hall, Wellington. The meeting was called at the request of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the Locomotive, Engine Drivers’, Firemen’s, and Cleaners’ Union, the Railway Tradesmen’s Association, the New Zealand Workers’ Union, the United Mineworkers Union, the New Zealand Federated Seamen’s Union, and the New Zealand Cooks and Stewards’ Union, affiliations of the Federation of Labour directly and indirectly concerned with the present dispute on the waterfront, and whose memberships are directly affected by the impact of the dispute. The following resolution was carried unanimously: “That this meeting of affiliated unions who are directly and indirectly implicated in the present dispute on the waterfront recommends to the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union that it should resume normal work and hand the dispute over immediately to the New Zealand Federation of Labour with a view to bringing about a satisfactory settlement.” All representatives present at the meeting referred to above were impressed with the seriousness of the dispute and its possible wide implications, and expressed the opinion that your executive should forthwith, in the interests of the whole industrial movement, hand over the dispute to the Federation of Labour.’ “No reasonable person could interpret that, or any other similar action, as ‘secret meetings.’ “The national executive of the Waterside Workers’ Union has attacked the sound policy suggested to them with a tirade of abuse and an absurd and incredible allegation that the Federation of Labour has lined up with employers. Just as fantastic is their self-deception in suggesting that only they by their methods are struggling for the betterment of workers* wages and conditions, contrary to the policy of the Labour Government and the Federation of Labour.

“The truth is that Sever before in the history of the Dominion have working conditions been improved so greatly as they have been under the Labour Government and the Federation of Labour. These achievements for workers have been brought about by amicable constitutional methods, and these methods have been proved to be most successful, and the continued use of them is the declared policy of the Federation of Labour. “Unfortunately, these methods which proved so successful are rejected by certain watersiders’ leaders. The rank and file of the watersiders’ union realise the truth of the fact that workers of the Dominion have made splendid progress in their status, conditions, and wages under the Labour Government through the representations and co-operation of the Federation of Labour.

“To abuse and fight the organised Labour movement is not the way to continue to progress. This is the first time in the history of the Federation of Labour that an affiliated body has refused to accept the assistance of the national executive of the Federation of Labour to settle a dispute. Federation’s Record “In the light of the successful record of the federation in handling disputes on behalf of its affiliations, and of the impossible position into which certain leaders of the waterside workers have manoeuvred their organisation,- it is obvious that the best course now would be for the leaders tp advise their members to resume normal hours of work and accept the federation’s offer of assistance in negotiating a settlement of their claims. “To sum up, the trade union movement of this country has to decide whether the unanimous decisions arrived at at the annual conference of the Federation of Labour, to which thfe waterside workers’ delegates subscribed, are to be abided by or whether there is to be industrial anarchy. “The last annual conference of the federation asked the Government to give workers direct representation in the running of industry. The watersiders were placed immediately in a favoured position by the setting up of a commission at the union’s own request, on which employers and workers had equal representation, with an independent chairman (Mr Justice Ongley). The watersiders gave their pledge to the Government that they were prepared to accept their responsibility in this arrangement, and to abide by decisions. In place of that pledge they have acted with grave irresponsibility. “The federation of Labour since its inception has consistently fought to secure for workers their full share of products created by their labour, and it is its intention, to continue that policy. That is its attitude to the present dispute, and the full facts of the discussions held will be placed before the conference of the trade union movement next Tuesday.” J