INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25227, 4 July 1947, Page 8

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

PARLIAMENT

Warning Given By Mr McLagan NO SUBMISSION TO THREATS From Our Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON. July 3. The Government would fight with all the force at its command threats of industrial force, said the Minister of Labour <Mr A. McLagan), in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives to-night. People ■were making such threats, he said, and no matter what section they might come from, the Government would' fight them and stand or fall by the result. “It is just as well if everyone understands that.” the Minister said. Mr McLagan said the present system of settling industrial disputes could be improved. The Opposition had called for improvements, but itself had been able to offer no detailed suggestions for making the improvement. The Government new had plans for enabling the Arbitration Court to catch up with its work. "We will continue to deal with industrial disputes with justice and fairness; that is the best way.” Mr McLagan said. Earlier, Mr McLagan. quoting mining industry figures of man days lost through stoppages, said the figures for 1930. 1931. and- 1932 were very much higher than the present mining totals of lost time. In those three years 195,300 days had been lost m mines, and last year the total was 30,000 days. He said he could recall that when he was a mine checkweigh-man. employers in some mines had used such practices against workers as the short ton, by which the miner was paid for a ton when the amount of coal was rctually 22 J or 23 hundrea-weight. The owners had robbed the men of nearly 10 per cent. Weighbridges sometimes weighed light and trucks were sometimes bigger than specifications, all of which worked against the miner. Secret Ballot Favoured Mr McLagan said he agreed with Mr F. W. Doidge ‘Opposition, Tauranga) that the idea of taking a secret ballot before any union u'ent on. strike might be a good one. The Miners’ Union had such a i-ule on its books, and moreover the majority in the ballot had to be two-thirds. Strikes sometimes came about now because people who did not like the Government and were determined to cause trouble and the employers produced circumstances which resulted in strikes. But there was no need to strike in this country. Mr McLagan said Mr Holland had alleged abject surrender by the Government to the waterside workers He had hinted at what he had said openly elsewhere, that the Government had dismissed Mr Justice Ongley from the Waterfront Commission. Mr McLagan said Mr Holland had the same attitude toward the Government and would grant it just as much mercy as would Mr H. Barnes, leader of the watersiders themselves, who had likewise made a claim that the Government had surrendered to the watersiders The watersiders conducted a strike but gained nothing from it. They were compelled to return to work and did no more than save their face. It was a “sight to make a dog laugh’’ to see Mr Barnes trying to convince the public that the Minister of Finance 'Mr Nash), whose job it was to take something from the people, had in fact given the watersiders something to their advantage. Settlement of Dispute When the dispute was referred back to the commission it was unable to find even a basis for settlement and Mr Justice Ongley sought to resign. The Government asked him to remain in office. The Minister then invited the watersiders to meet him and the result was that, in spite of the wateraiders’ threats of what they would do if the Government did not give them their own way, they were compelled to return to work without gaining anything. Even the shipowners had conceded that they could not have wished for a better settlement of the dispute. The first person to be told the terms of that settlement was Mr Justice Cngley, who was very pleased with it. He only then resigned after the Government had vainly pleaded with him to carry on. Mr Holland’s statement that the Government compelled Mr Justice Ongley to resign was “as unrelated to truth as the North Pole to the South.”

Mr McLagan said the watersiders had been slandered as men drawing two hours’ pay for one hour’s worx The impression had been given that the spelling system was in vogue in all ports, whereas it was almost confined to two ports. Most watersiders worked excellently, as the employers admitted. The exceptions were a small minority, and it was no help if reckless attacks were made on the watersiders. The Opposition actually did not want harmony on the waterfront or elsewhere, and was hoping to start something the Government would not be able to finish. The Government had succeeded in settling the waterfront dispute, but had the National Party been in office it could not have done that. The reason was that the unions knew the Government and trusted it, but they would not have got behind a National Party Government in the same way. Time Lost Through Accidents Mr McLagan, discussing the loss oi working time in industry, said critics had not mentioned the loss of working time through accidents. Last year 6143 accidents in factories caused the loss of 111,000 working days, and in all industries, 14,514 accidents had caused the loss of more than 500,000 working days. On the other hand working days lost in industrial trouble last year amounted to only 30.000. For the last five years, for which figures were available, 1,000,000 working days had been lost in the mines alone through accidents. Mr McLagan said the reason why miners and other workers had to fight was because of the dishonesty of the mine owners. It was left to this Government to put that right. The strike was once the only weapon of the worker, but it was not to-day, because there was no need to strike.

Mr McLagan said the Opposition believed in dictatorship in factory and workshop. While it spoke in favour of worker representation qn joint committees. the employers’ own organisation would not agree to this unless the employer nominated the worker representatives on such committees.