FREEZING WORKS EMPLOYEES

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26886, 12 November 1952, Page 10

FREEZING WORKS EMPLOYEES

CHURCH ASSEMBLY REPORT COMMENT BY REV. J. S. SOMERVILLE (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 11. The public questions committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly had always appreciated the friendly interest of the Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) in its dealings with him, the committee’s convener (the Rev. J. S. Somerville) said in Wellington this evening. Mr Somerville was commenting on press reports on the Rev. F. W. Winton’s speech to the committee’s report at the Presbyterian Assembly at New Plymouth. Mr Winton claimed there was victimisation of some workers in the freezing industry in New Zealand. Mr Winton’s speech and the committee’s report were not directed against the Government, Mr Somerville said. The matter as it stood had not reached the point where the Minister should be approached. The committee was trying to achieve a rapprochment in a given situation without recourse to authority, however wise or benevolent that authority might be. Mr Somerville, said he wished- as convener of the committee to make it clear that the whole matter was taken up by the committee. The following narrative of events would assist to make that obvious, he said. The committee, of which Mr Winton was not a member, took an impartial but active part in discussions during the strike in 1951. This was reported to the Assembly, which encouraged the committee to continue its work in this field. It did so almost immediately in connexion with the Police Offences Amendment Bill of 1951. Early in 1952. the new committee, with Mr Winton now a member, was advised of cases of alleged victimisation in the freezing industry. A strong sub-committee of responsible persons investigated those allegations and reported back that the matter needed further “prosecution. It was decided, therefore, before the committee could make an adequate judgment that the employers concerned should be approached and advised of the committee’s interest in the matter, Mr Somerville said. This was done in two ways—to the employers’ organisation and to an individual company. The approach was met with a courteous but firm “hands off” largely, the committee believed, because the approach was misunderstood and because the situation was too highly charged with falsely emotive terms like “victimisation” or “agitator.”

The committee, Mr Somerville said, was not asking for a return to their jobs for illegal “victimees”; it was asking, however, what were the real reasons behind the allegations, and whether there was not a chance of discussing them in such a way that a better prospect of hearing the alleged breaches would be possible. That was all the committee asked, but the groups approached were unable to accede to the request, even to open up the matter.