EXPLANATION OF DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25589, 2 September 1948, Page 4

EXPLANATION OF DISPUTE

STATEMENT BY MR MCLAGAN REPLY TO MR HOLLAND (P.A.) WELLINGTON, September 1. If, as was evident from the tenor of his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G.. Holland) still did not know what the Waikato coal strike was about he had failed to make reasonable inquiry, for the claims of the men and of the management had been published fully, ssid the Minister of Mines (Mr A. McLagan), replying •this evening to a statement by Mr Holland. The Minister said Mr Holland had had one incursion into a miners’ strike at Huntly with somewhat unhappy results. No doubt he now realised from experience that these were not matters for a tyro; hence the vagueness of his proposals for settling the dispute. Mr Holland at one time considered striking miners should be gaoled and subsequently, at closer range, he conceded they had the right to strike. It was therefore unlikely that the public would accept him as an authority on the present occasion. Mr Holland’s remarks about penalties seemed equally contradictory. In 1946 he said the law should never be used to threaten working people. “In fairness to him it should be remembered 1946 was election year,” Mr McLagan said. There was ample provision for the settlement of all disputes in the Huntly mines by the mediation of the local disputes committee with an independent chairman. This committee was established at the union’s request, had been operating in the district for some time, and had given satisfaction to all parties. The leaders of the present strike had themselves sat on this committee dealing with disputes at other mines in the district. In addition, the Coal Mines Council existed to deal with matters not exclusively of local application. Negotiations Explained > In the present case the Northern Miners’ Union was opposed to the strike and considered work should be resumed and the strike settled by the local disputes committee, which was the constitutional procedure. The men now on strike refused in the first instance to recognise the disputes committee or any other bodv to adjudicate in the matter and insisted on their claim being paid as a condition precedent to resuming work. Later they modified their attitude somewhat, proposing that prior payment be made and the matter be placed before the disputes committee, which would determine whether or not the money so paid should be refunded. The management refused to accede to this request.

As the difference of opinion over the temporary custody of a small sum of money was too unimportant to warrant a stoppage of work, said Mr McLagan. he proposed that it be paid to a third independent party and work resumed forthwith while the local disputes committee settled the claim. This had not yet been accepted, but he hoped commonsense would prevail and early settlement would be reached on this basis. In another statement Mr McLagan said a newspaper report that the overtures of the men on strike at Huntly were rejected by him was misleaamg. The men’s representatives asked that the Mining Controller and himself visit Huntly to hear the case or if that were impracticable, that delegates from the men with representatives of the management should discuss the matter with him in Wellington. His reply was that, while the matter should be dealt with by the disputes committee, he was prepared to meet a delegation in Wellington provided tuat course was approved by the Northern Miners’ Union and provided the men resumed work pending negotiations. “I can see no good reason for not accepting the suggestions I have made for settlement of the dispute,” said the Minister.