UNION STATEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 145, 16 December 1927, Page 11

UNION STATEMENT

REPLY TO CONTRACTORS

ahe views of the men on the Tawa I'lat deviation tunnel job, at present at a standstill as a result of a dispute between them and the' contractors, Messrs. Burnside and Matthews, were stated to-day by Mr. A. Cook (jjeneral secretary of the New Zealand Workers' Union), as follows:— Under the heading of 'Contractors ■Explain there appears a statement in the Press, made by. Messrs. Burnside and Matthews, regarding the trouble on the works, which statement, in many respects, is altogether misleading and does not state the true position. I f lrs t wish to deal with my efforts on behalf or the men' to reach a settlement, both before- and after the stop-work meeting, and I wish if to be known that i had a lengthy interview ~with Mr Burnside three hours before the meeting took place, and did my level-best to persuade him to be reasonable and arrange for an immediate conference: and if he would agree to this proposal, then work would be continued. "Mr. Burnside's final reply'was: 'I will not meet the men's representatives in conference earlier than Sunday, 18th December.' After all efforts had failed, at the request of the men, I attended the stop-work meeting and advised the men of the contractors' final decision. Immediately after the stopwork meeting I, in company with two other representatives of the men, conveyed the men's decision to Mr. Burnside, and again appealed for an immediate conference; and intimated that if he would agree, the afternoon shift was ready to commence work and there would have been no stoppage. Mr. Burnside told us distinctly that there 1 would be no conference before Sunday We conveyed this final decision back to the men and they hadno alternative but to cease.

'Now, m reference to the dismissal of the check inspector: the question of this official having his clothes burnt is only a quibble and does not eater into the argument. Ec men sending for the check inspector to inspect a wet place: this can be proved by all men who were oa the shift at that time, but immediately the check inspector commenced to carry out his duties he was removed to the other end of the tunnel and reduced 2s por shift, being told by the contractor if that did not suit him to get off the job, which he did, and no man with any principle could have done otherwise. "Begarding the discharge of the local president and secretary of the unionthe contractors said that they, along with others, had been given seven days' warning. The men have no knowledge of this, except that a statement was made by Mr. Burnside before a general meeting of the men held in my office, when he, along with Mr. Matthews,' were invited to be present in order to got the men's opinion regarding the proposed agreement. After he had promised to give us a definite statement as to whether he would meet us in conference or not within a week, he said: 'In all probability we will bo dealing with a different crowd of men in a week's time.' I considered this statement was made with tho Object of intimidating the men, but, fortunately, it only served to strengthen them in their desire to obtain justioe. "Some of the men dismissed have been in the employ of the contractor from the. start of the job. This applies particularly to some officials of the union,,but, straugo to say, he had no fault to find with their work before' they took a prominent? part in their own union business.

"Eegardirig the proposed agreement, a copy of which was forwarded to the contractors, as previously stated: this proposal was made for a basis of discussion when we met the contractors, and the contractors' contention that ' this proposal was looked upon as a demand is too foolish for words, and shows their absolute ignorance regarding industrial matters.

"Finally, in reference to competent tunnellers: from the number of men in the employ of the contractors, it can be proved that over twenty of them are compotent underground men, who have worked in tunnels and mines for many years; and I wish to state, in conclusion, that the union takes no side with any employee who is dismissed through insobriety. If any man goes to work under the influence of liquor, independent of whether he is a prominent union official or not, the employer is quite entitled to dismiss him, and the union will put up no argument nor ask for his reinstatement.

"The men are now showing a solid, united front, which proves conclusively that they have not received fair and just treatment from the contractors; and they are fully determined to either make this job fit for human beings to work on or else leave it severely alone in future." . . '