MINISTER'S ATTITUDE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 43, 19 August 1918, Page 7

MINISTER'S ATTITUDE

AN IMPORTANT INTERVIEW

THE GOVERNMENT'S DIFFICULTY,

A brief telegram from Auckland last week mentioned that a deputation representing the Federation of Labour had .called on the Minister of Mines (the Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald) in that city. As the subject is particularly interasting vo the public to-day The Post gives some passages from a verbatim report of the interview. In his reply the minister indicated that the Government had no easy task in finding a path to industrial peace.

"There is no question but thatitwouid be a very disastrous thing for the country if we were plunged into industrial trouble just now," said Mr. Mac Donald. "This particular question is.one of some difficulty so far as the Government is concerned. Personally, I have put the miners' point of view to the Mineowners' Federation, and have brought them to Wellington to diecuss the matter. The chief difficulty of the Government in the matter is this: that one section (the mine owners) is really complying with the law so far as it is concerned.

"In 1917 there was a conference in Wellington lasting seven or eight days between the Miners' Federation and the Mine Owners, and that, conference proved abortive—practically . nothing was done. It was agreed then that the miners should go to their individual unionseach company to its own individual miners' union—and endeavour to arrange a settlement. A settlement was arrived at between the miners' unions of the different companies and the mine owners. That was referred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and an award was made on the lines of .the agreement. Now, these agreements have different priods. of from one to two years to run. The Government has statute law (namely, the Arbitration Court), and when an award is made and agreed to by both sides, and one side desires it varied (although the federation maintains that it does not want the award varied, but only wants consideration in the way of a bonus), that is where our difficulty comes _ in. We .have a Court to which both sides have agreed to send their case for confirmation and award, and then in a very few months afterwards the federation can make a fresh demand on behalf of the miners who are working under an agreement. "Now I am not going to say that there is no flaw in an award or that an agreement has no flaw; that is quite a matter for consideration between both patties. We are supposed to be neutral until' one side or the other commits a breach of the law by which it agreed to abide. ■ The mine owners ask: 'If agreements are confirmed by the Arbitration Court, and immediately afterwards a body of miners can com© and ask if a variation can take place, where will tlio matter end? If our last agreements with the miners are useless, then if we met again, and came to another agreement, how long will it be before we are x^sk«d to alter that?' That is the contention of the owners.

"We have hoped all along that some solution of the matter could be arrived at. You must remember that when a Government passes laws and regulations, it is supposed to maintain such. Well, there is a tribunal for all labour disputes in this country—the Conciliation and Arbitration Court; and' the miners refuse to cite their case before this tribunal. On the one hand,, we have tihe federation stating that it has no faith in the Arbitration Court, and it wants a round-table talk to discuss the matter man.' to man. On the other hand, the mine owners say that they cannot deal with the federation. So you have the two parties; one (theminers) won't go to the tribunal setup by the Government, and the mine owners refuse to recognise the federation because the whole of the agreements that are in operation to-day were made with the" different unions, and not with the federation. If the agreement was not in forco and confirmed by the Arbitration Court and agreed' to by the mine owners and the miners, then we world' be in a very much easier position in suggesting a meeting. "There are two positions : we have either to say we admit that the confirmation of any agreement by the Arbitration Court is worthless, or that miners' agreements are useless. I am quite convinced of this, that so far as the Government is concerned, we are not going to see any exploitation by ths mine owners of the miners of this country. We do realise that the price of coal in this country is high, and so far as we can see there is no section of the people making higher wages than the miners are. Whether the coal mine owners, coal dealers, or retailers are making more is a question which I have already instructed the Board of Trade and some expert in coal matters to investigate, so that when the evidence has-been taken we shall have a. good idea of the position. I am hoping to have this investigation made as soon as possible.

"I am sorry to say that so far as the Government mines are concerned the miners have not had a good time this last two months. This dispute, however, between the miners and the Mine Owners' Association/has not been the cause of the shortage of coal which has been experienced, as the miners have kept on working. There have been more reasons than one; for instance, we have had the freezing works throughout the Dominion working fully all the winter owing to the amount of meat in store, and so far as the State mines are concerned thelack of shipping on the West Coast has delayed us, and that has been the real cause of the shortage.

"I feel the matter keenly, and hope that without causing trouble, friction, or dissolution in the country something wil! he done to bring about a settlement iT the best interests of all concerned."