The Press MONDAY, MAY 23, 1949. The Federation And The Carpenters

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25810, 23 May 1949, Page 6

The Press MONDAY, MAY 23, 1949. The Federation And The Carpenters

Almost at the last minute, delegates to the annuel conference of the New Zealand Federation of Labour wisely gave second thoughts to the resolution they had passed about the Auckland carpenters’ dispute. They may be congratulated on having extricated themselves from the perils of the second part of the resolution, which would have committed the federation to placing “ all “ its resources and strength ” behind the deregistered union—in whatever further irresponsibility or lawlessness it may be led into?'—but they have not extricated the federation from a position in which it looks very foolish. The official report of the conference makes .it clear that some delegates voted without understanding the meaning' of the resolution; but its amended form is little happier. By withdrawing the second part of the resolution the federation excused itself from supporting the old union. This is no more than just; the union has flouted the authority of the federation as brazenly as it has flouted the law, and it no longer represents the majority of the workers in this section of the industry. But the federation is committed, by the part of the resolution which stands, to a mulish refusal to recognise • a union which does, beyond all doubt, represent the majority of the workers. When they refused a ballot on a proposal to return to work and to accept the award of the Arbitration Court, the leaders of the old union tacitly acknowledged that they had lost the support of the majority of the workers. They admitted it again when they their application to the Supreme Court for an injunction against the registering of the new union; for to succeed in the application the old union would presumably have had to show the Court that it, and not the new union, holds the confidence of the majority of the workers concerned. No further obstacles seem to stand iii the way of the registration of the new union, which might be expected, in ordinary circumstances, to manage without the “ recognition ” and membership of the Federation of Labour, as other unions have done and still do. The federation, however, has branded the members of the new union as

“ scabs ”, This is wanton folly. “ Scabs ”, as unionists have always understood the term, are a minority of workers who attempt to break a strike or hamper other “ indus- “ trial action ” of the majority. In this dispute the majority are for constitutional measures within the law; it is the minority that wants direct action outside the law. The majority are branded as “scabs”, not because they prefer law to lawlessness, as the federation does, but because they have committed 4 the crime of disagreeing with their own officials. The delegates to the Federation of Labour are all trade union officials, accustomed to wielding no small amount of industrial power. They may not like the idea that majority groups in their own unions may some day challenge their authority to speak for all and commit all; but if that is why they have voted themselves into their dangerous position—and it is hard to see why else they can have done it—they have- as little foresight in industrial as in political affairs.