FREEZING DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 147, 18 March 1937, Page 8

FREEZING DISPUTE

The “Stay-in” Strike at Auckland STATEMENT BY LABOUR MINISTER Possession of Works Not Demanded An emphatic denial that there had been any demand for the police to remove tile "stay-in strikers from the Auckland freezing works at the time of the recent industrial trouble there was given by the Minister of Labour. Hon. H. T. Armstrong, at yesterday’s Dominion Dairy Conference m Wellington. The freezing companies, he said, had not demanded possession of the works. Had they done so they would have obtained it. Mr. Armstrong said he wondered what newspaper editors and chambers of commerce thought the Minister of Labour should have done. If lie had acted in any other way than he did h e would have come in for far more criticism. The truth about the matter had not been told. He had told it in both tile North Island and the South Island, but it had not been published in the newspapers; there had been published a lot of “tripe of the other side.”

Disaster Feared. The chairman of the Dairy Board, Mr. A. J. Murdoch, and his colleagues were among the first who came to him and pointed out the seriousness of the position if the situation that had then developed at Auckland were allowed to continue. They had offered the Government their co-operation in the event of it being needed, and that offer was appreciated by the Government. From every part of the Auckland province farmers, dairy companies and co-operative associations had been bombarding him with telegrams and telephone calls pointing out that if the position were allowed to continue it would mean disaster. Bor two days his telephone hardly stopped ringing, and at one o’clock in the morning he had to tell the telegraph authorities to put no more rings through to his home. Cabinet discussed the situation, and it was decided he should proceed to Auckland by aeroplane, but. weather prevented that course, and he travelled north by train. Although he sent word in advance that he was coming and thought that the men could have been assembled together at the one place as the works were not far apart, he found that had not been done. He had to go to each works and convince the men that they were doing the wrong thing and to come out of the works.

The Government had armed him with power to settle the dispute and had undertaken to back him up in anything he did. When he arrived at the works it took some time before he could be heard at all. He put it to the men that the works would have to be cleared that day (Saturday), and that if not the time had arrived for a decision to be given whether the Government was to govern this country. He also told them he wanted work resumed on the Monday morning, because if that were not done the dairy factories were going to refuse to take cream. “I demanded that the works be cleared that day and that the men resume work on the Monday, and the only promise they were given was that the freezing companies were prepared to meet representatives of the men and discuss the situation,” said Mr. Armstrong. Meeting With Employers. When the “stay-in” strike was decided upon, the representatives of the companies were meeting in his office, and he believed a settlement could have been arrived at without anyone knowing anything about it. He appealed to reason when he met the men. The men went. back to work and a conference was held between the parties. . All he did was to open that conference and appeal to both sides to allow reason to prevail and let bygones be bygones. He wished to leave, but by the unanimous request of both sides he remained and presided.

Now it was said, why did lie use the big Stick and direct thc companies to pay more and brush aside an award of’the Arbitration Court. The award was not interfered with by him. Nothing was done by him that could lie taken as a reflection on the integrity of those who constituted the Arbitration Court. It was agreed that an anomaly had crept into the award, and although there was an injustice the employers did not want to take the responsibility of granting an increase, and "the poor old Minister” had to do so. _ He had an assurance that if the Minister directed there was to be an increase the freezing companies would pay it. Fanners Innocent Victims. The farmers were the innocent victims of the whole business, and that was the rotten thing about it. Because of that he insisted on representatives of the dairy companies affected being invited. It was now said, why did he not ask the police to clear the works. It did not matter much to the freezing companies if the men were in or out, and the clerks and managers were able to go into the works and do their wotk in the ordinary way and leave them when they were finished. The police were told that if there were a breach of the law they must interfere. If anyone had asked for possession of the works the authorities would have seen that possession was given.

A voice! Is the statement that the police were asked not to interfere an untrue statement? The Minister: Absolutely untrue.

Mr. Armstrong said the head of the Police Departinent had rung him up and asked what net ion should be taken, and be said that unless there was a. demand by the freezing companies the police were not to interfere. A delegate: A demand was made for the police to clear the works. The Minister: By whom? 1 heard nothing of it. Mr. A. J. .Sinclair (Te Awamntu) : The demand was made to the superintendent at Auckland. The Minister: The head of the Police Department is the man. If thc men were not interfering with anybody and there was no demand to have the works cleared, why interfere ? A delegate: A demand was made by the Auckland Farmers’ Freezing Company. Possession Not Demanded. The Minister: They are separate, apart from the .slaughter business altogether. The freezing companies did not demand possession of the freezing works. Mr. Sinclair: You are quite wrong, Mr. Armstrong. The Minister: I asked for possession of the freezing works on the Saturday

and got it on the Saturday. I cot it the only way it could be got without playing the devil witli the dairy industry and every other industry in this country. Mr. Armstrong said that before the general election his predecessor in the office of Minister of Labour, the Hon. A. Hamilton, had gone to Waihl and had been instrumental in obtaining improved conditions for miners although there was an award. Had the Tory newspapers attacked Mr. Hamilton? No, simply because lie was not a Labour Minister. He could not mention a Minister of Labour who had not been called upon to settle disputes even though there were awards in existence. What did ' unions exist for lint to A voice: To stir up trouble. The Minister: vlf all unionists were like you they would take a hell of a lot of stirring. Common sense, added Mr. Armstrong, had to apply to the administration of an award. When Sir William. Herries was Minister of Labour the "drivers' union had an award that prescribed a

ridiculously low rate of wages. In that case the employers did the same as tlio freezing companies. They threw the onus on Sir William and by Cabinet resolution (lie wages of till drivers were increased, notwithstanding th,'it the ink on the award was hardly dry. The Tory newspapers did not say that Sir William did not stand for law and order. ”1 do not wish to lie egotistical, but 1 do not think many men in New Zealand could have had the influence over the mob at Auckland that 1 had,” said Mr. Armstrong. 'l’ho following statement by Mr., A. G. Brown, general manager of the Auckland Farmers’ Freezing Company. Ltd., appeared in a Press Association message from Auckland published in “The Dominion” op January ilo: “We got in touch witli the police last evening and nsked them to remove the men forcibly from the works, but Superintendent Till advised us that ius-triirltons liail been received from Wellington that they were not to interfere. The consequence is that the men are still there and have taken charge of the works, which are full of butter.’’