THE TRADES UNION CONFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 301, 14 September 1921, Page 6

THE TRADES UNION CONFERENCE

AND THE ARBITRATION COURT DELEGATE’S DISCLOSURES ALLIANCE SCHEME TO WRECK THE ACT Many observers are convinced that the Alliance of Labour wpuld Ge glad to use the present situation of the - Arbitration Court for the purpose, if possible, of wrecking tho Arbitration Act. Mr. J. Roberts, secretary of the alliance, stated on Saturday that the resolution passed by the recent conference of the alliance and other Labour organisations merely called upon the-workers not ito nominate any other person than Mr. MJCullough. It did not, hs said, call them to refrain from, making any nomination at all. In connection with that resolution, there are, however, strangely persistent rumours to ( the effect that It was not meant to boar the interpretation placed upon it by Mr. Roberts on Saturday. It has been stated in several quarters that the conference clearly understood it was recommending that no nomination should be made for the vacant seat.

Confirmation of the above reports/Se contained in the following statement, made to a Dominion representative yesterday by one of the delegates present at the conference:— / ' . ’ > WANTED AN AXE. "A resolution was moved' by Mr. W. T. Young to the effect tljat the deputymember of the Court (Mr. Reardon) should bo asked not to take his place oh tho Court, and that all unions should be asked to refrain from nominating any successor to fill the vacancy. This resolution was seconded by Mr. Chard. It caused a good deal of discussion. It was apparent that there was considerable opposition' to it, and that what was in the minds of those who supported it was to do away with the Court altogether. The mover said that he 'wished to God some one with an axe would knock the, capitalistic concern on the head.' The secretary of' the conference (Mr. J. Roberts) stated that as the decisipns of the Court always had an influence in conferences between the employers and his own and other unions which would not go to the Court, he wanted- 'the whole caboose’ out of the way. "During the discussion it was asked whether the conference would be in favour of re-electing Mr. M'Cullough to.the position. The chairman (Mr. M. J. Mack) suggested that it might be wise to send a telegram to Mr. M'Cullough asking him if he jrould accept renomination, and to adjourn the conference until the following afternoon, when the whole matter could be discussed. The reason that he suggested the adjournment until two o’clock in the afternoon was that the conference had to wait on the Government as a deputation in the forenoon. "Mr. E. Kennedy (president of the Trades and Labour Council) said that he would move along the line suggested by the chairman, but he was ruled out of order, as he had already spoken against the motion. Then Mr. F. J. Niall moved as an amendment: "That this conference send a telegram to Mr. M'Cullough to ascertain whether he would be prepared to accept renomihation.” This was seconded by Mr. Kennedy.

"This amendment was also the occasion of considerable discussion. Mr. T. Young stated that he was ngainst it, and 1 that his executive council, which had adjourned its sessions to attend this conference, would not tolerate for a moment the adjournment of the matter even to enable Mr. M'Cullough’s views to be ascertained. If the amendment was carried, he and his co-delegates would not attend the conference any more.

"The amendment was voted on, and was defeated by fourteen votes to thirteen. The motion® was then put, and was carried by, fifteen votes to nine. WHAT WAS MEANT.. | "Mr. Kennedy inquired what the decision of the conference meant, and was informed that its meaning was this: That Labour should be urged not to nominate anyone for the position at a.p. Someone interjected; 'lf Labour refrains from nominating anyone, then the Government will do sol’ Mr.'T. Armstrong replied: 'Let them!' "You see, then, that though Mr. Roberto stated that the renomhiation of Mr. M'Cullough would suit the-Alliance of Labour, and that the conference decided on his renomination, the conference’s ’actual decision was that there should be no nomination at all. The Alliance of Labour is out for the destruction of the arbitration system, and is trying to stampede the unions into following its insane policy of direct action ami strike. I feel sure thate the good sense of the majority of the unions will enable them to see through the scheme. ALLIANCE’S TRUMP CARD. "During the arguments on arbitration, Mr. Roberts stated that the Alliance of Labour held a trump card because of the votes it controlled in the election of a member of the Court. Another delegate retorted that the Alliance might not control such a preponderance of voting power as it thought. "I have no quarrel with those men or unions who think arbitration is no good. But I have a grievance against the politicians who allow these objectors the same rights and privileges as the unionists favouring arbitration enjoy. Take the case of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants: This body is registered under the Act by a special section. It has never used the machinery of tho Act for the settlement of any dispute, or filed any agreement under the Act. Nevertheless, it has considerable voting power in the election of a member of the Court. It is high time that Parliament repealed the special section I have referred to, and prevented unions which did not believe in the system from voting in such elections.”

FILLING THE VACANCY

MR. M'CULLOUGH’S INTENTIONS STILL IN DOUBT. In spite of the fact that Mr. M'Cullough appears, from a report already quoted from the "Lyttelton Times,' to have assured the Alliance of Labour t'hat nothing whatever would induce him to sit on the Court again, there still remains some doubt about his intentions. A more recent statement attributed to him is the following: "If reelected, I will hold the fort until such timo as the movement has an opjjortunity to elect a successor without tho present excitement.” All doubt should be removed by Mr. M'Cullough’s answer (which has still to arrive) to the telegram dispatched on Saturday last by tho! Wellington Trades and Labour Council. The council sent file following message: "Special meeting Trades Council unanimously nominate 'you position on Arbitration Court. Will you accept?" The meeting was adjourned till to-morrow night, as the council expected that (he reply would be available by then. As it has not so far como to hand, the secretary will send Mr. M'Cullough a fresh telegram , to-day.

MR. REARDON’S CANDIDATURE. Mr. M. J. R-eardon has offered himself for election to the seat vacated by Mr. M'Cullough. Last week he circularised the unions as follows: "You are aware of the resignation of Mr. J. ; ,A. M'Cullough as the workers’ representative on the Court of Arbitration. Mr. M'Cullough has been asked to again accept nomination, but has definitely declined. In these ciicumstances I beg to offer my services to the unions of New: Zealand for the position. “I have been deputy-representative since 1916, and have had .some, experience of Arbitration Court work. 1 realise, of course, that there are strenuous times ab?n<l. of the workers, but can only promise that I shall strive te be worthy of the position if nominated. ' "I shall be pleased to (receive a nomination from your union, such nom- ’ ination to be sent to the Registrar of Unions, Wellington, not later than October 7 next.” In view of the doubt about Mr. M Cullough’s intentions. Mr. Reardon was yesterday asked whether ho would proceed with hts candidature if Mr. M'Cullough consented to renomination. He replied that he was not ready to make a statement on this point, and indicated that he might get into touch with Mr. M'Cullough by letter in order to learn clearly what the latter had in mind , HOTEL WORKERS’ VOTES. Mr. H. O’Malley (secretary of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union) stated yesterday that if Mr. M'Cullough consented to renomination and undertook to sit as a member of the Court upon election, the hotel workers throughout the country would be advised to support him. If, on the ether hand. Mr. M'Cullough did not give the undertaking mentioned, the hotel workers would be advised to nominate Mr. M. J. Reardon. The militant ’unions, ho said, could do without lhe Court, but there were many other unions, such as those of the hotel workers, the shop assistants, the factory workers, and the coach workers, which relied upon the Court, and were not jn a position to ''fight on the job ’’ MR. REARDON?POSmON ' AN AMENDED RULING. The Attorney-General (Sir Francis Bell), in a statement published in Tub ’Dominion yesterday, stated that the resignation of Mr. M'Cullough from the office of workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court had rendered vacant also the position of deputy-representa-tive, held by Mr. Reardon, and that both positions would s.now require to be filled. Yesterday Sir Francis Bell stateci that after reading' other sections of the Act he found that he had been wrong ns far as Mr. Reardon was confined. Mr. Reardon’s appointment did not lapse by reason of the necessity that had arisen for the selection of a successor to Mr. M'Cullough. ■ This amended rtihpg does not affect the situation to any material pxtent. Mr. Reardon'remains deputy-nominated member of the Court, but he cannot sit, and so the business of the Court cannot proceed.