[BLUNDERS OF THE STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1940, 24 December 1913, Page 6

[BLUNDERS OF THE STRIKE.

THE MANIFESTO OP THE U.L.P.

FEDERATION UPBRAIDED.

DOWN WITH THE RED BANNER.

'After many requests to tho United Labour party for a plain statement of facts in connection with tho recent strike tho following has been prepared by the National Executivo of the party:— "The agreement mado between the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union, tho employers, and tho Now Zealand Federation of Labour was to remain in forco from February 1, 1912, until January 31, 1914. When the employors made that agreement with tho Federation of Labour they knew: "1. That the Federation jvas q revolutionary body. "2. That it was not registered under the Arbitration Act. "3. That the Wharf Unions the Federation was acting for wero repudiating tho Act. "4, That a New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation existed, regis-. tered under tlio Arbitration Act. "With a knowledge of these facts tho employers mado the agreement with tho New Zealand Federation of Labour. Bv that agreement the employers granted terms and conditions such as they had never given to the Waterside Workers' Unions whilst they remained under the\ Arbitration Act. The employers thus encouraged the workers' unions to repudiate the Act; they practically ignored tho Waterside Workers' Federation, and assisted in strengthening tho body whose representatives told thorn plainly: 'We are out to tako your property from you by direct action.' Keeping these facts in mind will make the incidents of this strike bettor understood. . i First Fatal Step. "To strengthen tho Federation of Labovir, and in pursuance of the 'one big union' idea, the secretary of tho Wellington Waterside Workers' Union induced the members of the Wellington Shipwrights' Society to break up their society, divide up their funds, and join tho Waterside Workers' Union. Tho shipwrights attempted to mako an agreement with tho shipowners'for improved terms and conditions, and, not being able to sottle, they went out on strike, without, as far as wo can learn, a formal resolution of tho union they belonged to. Mr. Farland called a special meeting of his union on October .20, 'to consider tho question of payment for travelling time and how they would liolp tho shipwrights on strike.' That meeting was called at a time when the great body of the members could not bo present, It was attended by about 200 out of the 1700 members. It was decided to hand the shipwrights' case over to tho Federation of Labour,and then.a motion was carried to call a stop-work meeting of tho whole union on October. 22 at 8 a.m. A reference to Rulo 32 of tho union's rules shows that, had the rule been observed, this stop-work meeting at 8 a.m. could not havo been held. The meeting was advertised on October 21, and tho employers intimated that if it was held they would regard tho stoppage of work as breaking the agreement. The stopwork meeting was held on October 22 from 8 a.m. till 9.30 a.m. The labour foreman put somo men on to jobs that others wero on previously,, and the men thus left out claimed to be put back in tho jobs. they had been at. A further stop-work meeting was called for 1 p.m., to consider tho matter of the reinstatement. The president of tho union (Mr, F. Curtice) advised that, by stopping work, 'tho agreement 'was broken from A to Z, and they wero on strike.' _ At the afternoon meeting it was decided to striko work until the men were reinstated in their old jobs. This decision was clearly in entire disregard of Rule 52 of the union's rules, which reads thus: 'No striko shall bo entered into until a ballot has been held to determine tho opinion of tho whole union on tho question in dispute.'

"The employers held a meeting at 3 p.m. The union wanted tho particular men reinstated. Tho employers said other men were put on because of the stop-work meeting, and refused the union's request. Thus the striko was entered upon. The general facts go to show:—

"(1) That tho shipwrights joined tho Waterside Workers' Union, and were classified in the 'shipwrights and shipworkers' branch.'

"(2) The agreement in forco between tho employers and the union was never amended to include shipwrights. "(3) Tho shipwrights, as a branch, camo out on strike without observing tho provision of Rule 52.

"(4) Tho shipwrights struck work without direction of tho union to which they belonged, and tho anomalous condition was established of a minor branch of the union being on strike whilst tho rest of tho union members were at work.

"(o) The Waterside Workers' Union held a stop-work meeting to consider:

"(a) Tho question of payment of travelling time for slip workers—which according to Clause 23 of their agreement should have been dealt with by a local committee, representing both the employer and tho union.

"(b) The question of assisting tho shipwrights on strike, when, wo understand, it was already decided to hand that over to tho control of tho Federation of Labour. .'More Watcrsldo Blunders. "Tho union, then, under ihs guidance of its secretary, appears to liavo committed theso most serious mistakes:— "1. Overlooking, ignoring, and breaking its own rules. "2. Countenancing somo of its members going on striko whilst the rest remained at work. ■ "3. Forgetting these words in Clause 28 of the agreement: 'The essenco of this agreement being that the work of the employers shall always proceed in tho customary manner and shall not on any account whatsoever be impeded,' and deliberately breaking what is therein defined as 'tlio essence of tho agreement.' "4. Being altogether too ready to 'dowil tools' and run the risk of losing a good agreement knowing that its continuance depended only upon mutual consent of tho parties thereto. "The Waterside' Workers' Union, after the striko was opened, paid their dues into tho Federation of Labour. Control of tho striko was later handed over to the Federation Executive, not one of whom is a waterside worker.

"At first tho Federation leaders insisted on reinstatement of tho agreement as their solo claim. Tho employe era made tho following offer:—

"1. Registration of the ngreoment rnidor tho Arbitration 'Act. "2. Registration of tho union under tho same Act. "3. Reinstatement _ of national agreement with provision for a ponalty of £1000 for breach of Clause 28.

4. Same condition for a local agreement with £500 penalty. "5. An offor that the employers . would abide by the decision of a ballot of tho men, taken under Government supervision, in settlement of tho dispute. "6. Offer to submit tho wholo matter to Sir Joshua Williams as arbitrator. "Theso offers woro from tuna to timo refused by the Federation, of Labour

and then tlio employers withdrew the offers. Later on tho strike leaders wanted the employers to settlo on the penalty condition, but that failed. Still later on, the question of Sir Joshua Williams was again raised, and the strike leaders wanted the employers to agreo to that, but tho employers refused, taking tho ground that tho time had gono past for any such arbitration as tlioy were bound to recognise tho ueiv union that was formed. Tho Impossible Federation. _ "Throughout the striko the Federation of Labour leaders have used, and countenanced tho uso of, strongly inflammatory language. Violence was employed bv the strike sympathisers towards stopping trade and inflicting injury on individuals. The Government maintained public order by the use of ordinary and special policed and also assisted the employers in directions that enabled them to procure labour. Tlio employers aided in forming an Arbitration Union, over which they have exercised somo control, and tho same was registered under tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act, although at tho time of the _ registration tlio members of said union wero not engaged in tho inTlio outstanding facts for consideration are:—

"1. That tho employers and the Federation of Labour have been jointly responsible in passing a lieavv burdon on to the public by their actions preceding- the strike. "2. That this strike was not properly a contest between tho employers of wharf labour and the waterside worker, but really a trial of strength between the Employers' Federation and the Federation of Labour. "3. Q'hat throughout there was exhibited on tho part of the Federation of Labour an utter disregard of everybody's interests but their own, and a great lack of steadiness of judgment, balance, and foresight. "Years of V/ork Wrecked." "A general survey of the situation must convince the publio and all true unionists that tho United Federation of Labours's revolutionary policy in one of disruption in the Labour movement and of deliberate anarchy as affecting publio interests. Through tho Federation's advocates in tho Waterside Workers' Union they broke their own union rules, tore up their constitution, disregarded the agreements they had made and plunged themselves, their fellowworkers, and the whole country into serious trouble. The existence of this propaganda of irresponsible revolutionary action has destroyed many workers' unions which it iook years of hard toil to create. The remedy lies in tho hands of the workers. Each individual must tako an activo and intelligent interest in the affairs of his union. If sound trades unionism is to live it can only bo by a straight-out repudiation of tho doctrines and methods of insane revolutionism. The workers must return to tho constructive lines of action which enabled the trades councils in past years to seoure most of tho labour legislation wo possess. Our unions must federate together in one not to violate or oppose the law of our country, but to uphold tho Jaw and make it better for our peoplo as a whole."'