BLUFF ?

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 14, 16 July 1921, Page 7

BLUFF ?

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Whilst thanking you for the space afforded us in this discitisioii, we seek pormissioai for a, short reply to your correspondent's last. His buld as•sertions that the league has made "wild allegations" is not tine, and. his call for our proof of a.sserliions we have Jiever ■made is simply a. further exhibition of bluffing. He says.: ."The league laiows as well as I do that the vuiion cannot refer its case to the. Court, but iitis not sufficiently straight-forwArd to admit its mistake." Our auswer is. that the league knows Jiotliing of the kind, iwid 'his assertion in nothing mor-e nor less than an impertinent attempt to misrepresent the league's position.

With reference to the ropOTt of the Mayor of Petane's statement, we have merely to say that, if Mr. M'Ewah is correctly reported, jw must have misapprehended what was presented to him by the league. We previously published ■what we suggested to tho Mayor and councillors; which was to . advise • the •union to file a case \mder tho LC. and ■A. Act. That is what Was urged upon Mr. M'Ewan in the interview, wo had with.him.. The Mayor was.supplied with a typed, copy of our' suggestions. Even if there was misunderstanding of what transpii-ed in an informal conversation there was Certainly no bluffing on, the part of either the Mayor or ourselves. Your correspondent asks the. league "if it knows why the Court in 1914 refused to make an award for the Wellington Tally Clerks' Union?" Yes, we do; 'here is the substance of the decision :—:

"We hold that the union ie not fairly representative of the workers in the indijsfcry concerned, and is not entitled to 'foist a dispute upon employers and the great majority of workers, who ar-e working in peace and harmony. If we wers to hold otherwise, we should bo allowing the Count to bo used as a.n instrument for creating instead of settling industrial ■disjputea. There was, in f aot,. no . genuine dispnte in the industry. The Court therefore refuses to entertain the question ' df making an Jiwal'd in this case."

If "One Who Knows" is. contending that at the time when the Petoiie gasWorks' dispute arose "thte union did not fairly represent the Workers in the industry concerned, it trying to foist a dispute- on the employers and the great majority of'workers who were working in peace a-nd harmony; in short, that there Was in fact no g.ehuin'e 'dispute in tho industry," then he is making a much ■graver charge against 1 the union than 'the league has ever made. We believe 'he was simply trying another bluff in Tefer-rinor to the decision on the Wellington Tally 'Clerics' Union case.

Your correspondent's call on the league to show rts whole hand whilst he keeps Ws hidden is beautifully reminiscent of the "chiWKke and bland" as described by Mr. Bret TTarte. '

_ When the league wants to convey any ■information to the public, it will act without reference to "One Who Knows:" 'Wo have given him so much attention wily because, from his style, Aye take 'Mm to he one of themisleaders who are ■sore because the league exposes their bluff and trickerr fen thn real workers and tho ireneral politic.—We are. etc .. N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE, loth July.