WAREHOUSE WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1215, 25 August 1911, Page 9

WAREHOUSE WORKERS

THE NEW UNION. IS THERE VICTIMISATION? A deputation of "Wellington warehouse employees interested in the new union was introduced' to the- Minister for Labour (the Hon. J. A. Millar) yesterday by Mr. D. M'Laren, M.P. Tho deputation was accompanied by Mr. F. Reyling, representing the Wellington Trades and Labour Council. Mr. M'Laren said that in connection, with the formation of tho Merchants' Assistants' Union pressure of an objectionable kind had been brought to bear upon tho employee?. The union was registered under the Arbitration Act, and they wished to know' if tlvsy could be protected, under present or" prospective legislation, from discrimination cr victimisation. Mr. G. G. Farland, secretary of tho union, said that one of the leading employers caused a petition to be circulated against the union, by a foreman, and he (Mr. Fnrland) advised these who camo ta_ him that if they did not sign it they might lose their jobs. Inione instance a man with a- wife and family, who had held his position for two years, was sacked merely because tho president of thp union spoke two words to him. The heads of departments, who wero virtually foremen, got bonuses on the profitable running of their departments, and the consequence was that they kept the wages down as low as possible, and they, therefore, had the invidious po-sition of one man getting £5 a week, and the next under him ,£2. In one instance the under-manager went round tho warehouse with tho foreman in charge of the petition. Of course, the employees were not told they would be sacked if they- did not. sign, but they could take that for granted. Tho petitions were taken fo the managers' offices, ■ . . Signature or "Sack"? An.employee also spoke in corroboration of the above statements. He said that in one warehouse there were seven men getting under 355. a week. It seemed to him that the man who came round with the petition practically had the petition in one hand and the employees' bread nnd butter in tho other. He and others were now in fear of getting notice to k-ave. Mr. Farland said tho union. pave tho employers 10 clear days to consider the demands before filing thorn with the Conciliation Commissioner.- ... Mr.. Keyling said he' and Mr. Farland had advified one of the unionist cmployi ces to sign the petition und?r protest; i Th? meeting against the union was attended only by. foremen. He knew them.. There was no doubt that intimidation .was going on. "' " " -7 Mr. Mce, president of the union, said one miii had been already sacked in this connection. In another eass the men were lined up and asked to hold up the.;! hands if thev belonged to or approved of the union. None of them held up their hands, and yet the union had members 1 in that warehouse. ' • Mr. M'Laren said Section' 109 of the . Arbitration Act, 1908, was directed ". against intimidation, but it did not appear to go far enough to protect employees forming a union. The employers' or- '. ganisat.ion had called in the aid of the : Employers' Federation, and the leaders lof the Labour movement,. though they had taken no active part as vel, conld not stand idlr by and teo the'ir weaker brethren, victimised.

Mr. Millar's Reply, j The .Minister said the matter laid be- ■ fore him was anything but pleasant,- rbe-i' cause one would have thought that after .17 years of industrial arbitration no-bodv :of employers would have been found iii j New Zealand who would have . opposed the formation of a union. It appeared on tho face of it that those employers ! must have something to hide becnure'tho ! law provided for full publicity of every contract between a worker and bis.-cm- ' plover If the facts were as rfatcUf-ho "'ought the petition would have very little weight when, the ease came before .the Conciliation..Commissioner. As Minister for Labour he did not <?e where lie i could come in af all.'.He could not prevent a man from a voluntary act, even though there might really be compulsion. He thought the union- had the remedy in tbeir own hands, because its registration and the notification of its demands to the employers save it, in his opinion, the benefit of Clause 109, and anything done by the employers of the sort complained of could be. brought before.- the Court and dealt with by the Court under that clause. If the facts were as stated, there \ras great need for a union and for. publicity. Employers who desired to; treat their employees fairly had nothing to fear from coins before, a Conciliation Council or.the Arbitration Court... .Tlio ■Court had never yet awarded unreasonable wages. He hoped the employers would yet soo their way to meet the workers nnd come to. an agreement. If they would do so without >ven coins to tho Conciliation Commissioner so much the better. If they would not do so they could not stop the union going ahead and getting an award that would bind all tho employers. Ho nuito saw tho point as to tho eiicct of the bonus system on the foremen; If a petition wos talen round by a foreman arc! not by flic emp.oyer in persrn, that would not make any difference to the legal position. Tho employer would bo responsible just the Mr. M'laron and Mr. Parland montion«l that some of the employers had met the worfcnrs fairly, and the latter mentioned that at least one-Mr. BalliVerwas payin.? tho wages asked for.