ALLIANCE OF LABOUR

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 47, 25 February 1937, Page 5

ALLIANCE OF LABOUR

DISPUTE BETWEEN LEADERS

MR. COOK REPLIES TO MR. WALSH

< A further statement in the controversy over the split in the Alliance of Labour was made today by Mr. A. Cook, secretary of the New Zealand Workers' Union, who replies to statements made by Mr. F, P. Walsh, president of the New Zealand Seamen's Union.

"It was not my intention lo continue further newspaper controversy in connection with the above-mentioned matter, but,. after reading the lengthy and in-most cases incorrect report that appeared in the 'Evening Post' of the 22nd instant, I am compelled to reply to some of the statements that appeared therein;" said Mr. Cook. -

"In the first place let me tell Mr. Walsh very definitely that to date 1 h,ave not conferred with Mr. Roberts in connection with this matter in any way, being of the opinion. that Mr.. Roberts is fully capable of looking after himself, and, as a great portion .of Mr. Walsh's statement refers to Mr. Roberts, I will leave it to that gentleman, who may see fit to reply to the misleading statements that refer directly to the actions of Mr. Roberts. "The most amusing part of Mr. Walsh's statement is that it refers lo matters' that occurred many years ago. ' and that are now forgotten. .They are hardly worth while and it' certainly serves' no useful purpose in bringing them to light and it is my intention to reply to those matters very briefly. " "Firstly,.Mr. Walsh quotes an extract from a speech by the late Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, that refers to something that I was . alleged to have said in Dunedin. What that was no one appears to know. RAILWAY WORKERS. "The second skeleton be drags to light is one' in which I offer no apologies. It refers to a telegram that I forwarded to the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, then Leader of the Opposition, away back in 1929: These are the facts:— At that particular time work was proceeding on the South Island Main Trunk Railway, Sir Joseph Ward being the Prime! Minister. I received an urgent telegram'from the union's representative on the job.to the effect that men were being employed on the railway at relief rates of pay, and, realising that Mr. Coates had .made a statement when Prime Minister that" in future no railway undertakings would be carried on at relief rates in New Zealand, I wired him pointing out what was taking place on the South Island Main Trunk and reminding him of his - promise. . I received a reply to the effect; that- he had conferred with the Prime Minister arid no men would be engaged on the railway at relief rates of pay.- - If that action was disloyal to the Labour Party,,then I fail to.see it. WHat Mr. Coates did in the matter, of course, could have been done by the late. Mr. Holland equally well, but the point was Mr. Holland had not made {he promise but Mr. Coates had, and I was putting the responsibility on him to see that it was discontinued. At a. later, date, when I discussed the question with our late Labour leader, he agre.ed that my action was certainly not disloyal, but, to be quite fair, he, did say. that he would have liked the opportunity "of dealing with the matter. POLITICAL UNIONISM! "The third and last matter in connection with remote history that I desire to reply to is that in connection with being a political non-unionist, and I candidly admit that until a few years ago I was definitely a political, nonunionist and am big enough to admit it, but after I came .into closer contact with men like the late Mr. H. E. .Holland and others, then active members ;of the . political Labour Party, I realised that 1 was entirely on the wrong track' and I am now convinced th'ati'political, and industrial Labour activities must be dove-tailed and work in harmony with one another. "However, during the time that 1 was a political non-unionist I am proud to say that I never at any time acted contrary to the interests of Labour. Further, during a portion of that period.my. most active supporter was Mr. F. P. Walsh, and at the Labour Party's annual conference1 in 1930, when I addressed- the conference and pointed out the need for closer: unity and ob-: jected to some statements made by Labour members of Parliament, which I had a perfect right to do, Mr. Walsh was ,my • main supporter. ■ . RECENT HISTORY: " "Now; let me return to 'recent history/which is air that we are concerned about at the present time. ■ I will first deal with Mr. Roberts's report presented by. him as secretary of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour on April 16, 1935. In that report, Mr. Roberts pointed out the- absolute need for .assisting Labour in politics. He stated: 'That during the past twenty years, every industrial Jaw enacted has been opposed to the'best interests of , the wage-worker;, and has been aimed to restrict our activities and prevent in every possible way the trade unions obtaining a higher standard of living for the workers, and most-important, the Government has appointed. men to positions who are opposed to the interests of the wageworkers, and who have, in a very large measure, always carried out the instructions of the Employers' Federation'; and he concluded by saying 'I have.no doubt whatever that the industrial- and political Labour movement in New Zealand can wield sufficient influence to make these political changes, providing we have the.unity of the workers within out own organisation.' .. . • , • .

"When it came to the question of adopting the secretary's report, Mr. L. Glover said he was unable to agree with the report submitted by the secretary. He had no objection to the secretary giving a detailed report of the activities of the organisation throughout the year but he strongly objected to the secretary expressing opinions in the report which, when they were adopted by the meeting, would be the policy of the organisation during the coming year, and he moved as an amendment that that part of the secretary's report dealing with political action be deleted.

. "Mr. F. G. Young (Mr. Walsh's adviser) seconded the amendment. He said that the industrial group was being attapked from day to day by the politicians.' and that the waterside workers, seamen, and hotel workers required no favours from the political Labour Party, and he agreed with Mr. Glover that political action should not be referrec" to in the secretary's report "Now, Mr. Walsh states that he supported Mr. Glover because, in his opinion, Mr, Roberts was endeavouring to use the Alliance of Labour to -obtain the position of president of the New Zealand Labour Party. That statement is simply rubbish and not worth while taking notice of Further, Mr. Walsh did not support Mr. Glover. He never opened his mouth on the question as records of the meeting go to prove. Mr. Walsh may say that the records are not correct in this respect, but let me tell him that he was one of a committee who endorsed the report as being a correct record of what had taken place.1 Therefore; Mr. Walsh is again bowled out.

Mr. Walsh states: "I have to thank Mr. Cook for acknowledging the truth of my statement that he was defeated for the position of president of the Alliance of Labour at. the 1935 annual Conference of the Alliance." Let -me say in reply to that, statement that I never attempted to' deny this fact, but what I did resent at that time were the methods used by Mr. Walsh and his friends to br.T^ about my defeat. For two years previously I had intimated, and, as a matter of fact, appealed to the council to relieve me of the position, as I had held it: for a number of years and wished to make way for another man for a term, and at the previous annual meeting held in Christchurch .Mr. 'Walsh and Mr. Young begged 'antf implored me to carry on. I asked them for what reason, and they stated, there was the possibility of a crank being appointed president of-the Alliance of Labour.

"At the 1935 'annual meeting I was not- asked by Messrs. Walsh or Young or Glover if I was prepared to accept nomination for "a further term. They had already decided to appoint a new president in order to strike at Mr. Roberts, their idea being that Mr. 'Glover, who had opposed Mr. Roberts earlier in the meeting in connection with his report and who was at that time very unfriendly towards Mr. Roberts, the secretary, was the proper man for the position. When the vote for the election of president was taken at least one of the delegates was absent and Mr. Glover, who incidentally voted for himself, received six votes and Mr. Cook received four and definitely refused to vote for himself.

,"I am not in any, way complaining about, my defeat, but I do resent the manner in which my defeat was brought about. Had Messrs. Walsh, Young, and Glover approached me during the meeting I would have welcomed the opportunity to stand down in place of another man in accordance with my expressed wish for two years previously. Therefore, Mr. Walsh "has nothing to gloat about in my defeat. THE 1936 MEETING. "When the final split took place at the 1936 annual meeting of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, nearly half the delegates assembled refused to carry on in an organisation with men some of whom in the most abusive language had previously condemned members of the political Labour Party and, as a last resort to split the organisation, attempted to scrap its constitution by admitting individual unions and unions formed by the management of freezing companies to smash the trade union movement in New Zealand, and Mr. Walsh has the audacity to accuse those men' of attempting to bring about disunity in the Labour movement, and he goes on to say that the break-away section has complete unity in its ranks at the present time. This is mere eye-wash. They have not even a skeleton of the Alliance of Labour left, for the simple reason that organisations who wish to work in the .open definitely refuse to b,e associated with them. "Mr. Walsh states: Tdo not propose to enter into a discussion on the internal affairs of the Waterside Workers' Union, as, in my opinion, neither Mr". Cook nor myself are entitled to poke our noses into the internal affairs of another organisation. It is a matter for the rank and file of the unions concerned, not ours.' "I agree with him in that respect, but am compelled to say that no man in the Labour movement in any part of the world has poked his nose into the affairs of other unions more than Mr. Walsh has done,-and I know of at least one large Wellington union that is telling him, during the present week, to take his nose out of their affairs' for all time. I merely mentioned in my previous article what had taken place in connection with Mr.'Glover at the Waterside' Workers' Federation for the simple reason that I was present, asa witness, at the Waterside Workers' Federation Executive meeting and knew what took place. I was called as a witness to refute a statement made by Mr. Glover. • , UNION DEMOCRACY. "Again let me rjpeat that I have no intention of interfering with the affairs of other organisations. That is no concern' of mine, but the long and rambling statement made by Mr. Walsh (most of it ancient history) compels me to refer to some of his friends. I can at least say this with all sense of security that, during the whole of my association with the Labour movement, both in Australia and New Zealand, and particularly in connection with the union that I am present intimately associated with, it has always been run on democratic lines. Nothing in hidden from the membership, and never at any time have we had a secret section within the union's ranks sworn not to divulge union business other than what the secret sect deems necessary to be divulged. Can Mr.- Walsh deny this about some of his friends with whom he is today so '• closely allied? ' ■ • "Now, with reference to that unity that Mr. Walsh alleges exists between the so-called Alliance of Labour and the Trades and Labour Council, I am reliably informed that no such unity exists. Further, the Trades and Labour. Council has no intention of entering into an alliance with men such as Mr. Walsh and his few friends. If I know the Trades and Labour Council's views correctly, they want clean trade unionism, and that is what the union that I represent, the Waterside Workers' Federation, and the New Zealand Railwaymen's Union require. With that object in view, these three organisations, representing a membership of 40,000 trade unionists, have called a unity conference that will open in Wellington on April 2. To this conference every union in New Zealand has been invited, and the suggestion that these large organisations desire to dominate the position is absurd. They desire nothing of the kind. All that they require is industrial unity throughout New Zealand and a national organisation that can speak and act on behalf of all organised workers and materially assist the Labour Government in its gigantic task to make New Zealand fit for New Zealanders to live in and fully enjoy the results of their labours. "The trade union movement is too big to consider either the writer or Mr. Walsh, and the present controversy, so far as I am concerned, is not going to deter complete unity from being achieved. It is a matter, however, that had to be cleaned up before we could hope to get that unity so much desired by the wage-workers in this country. WHY THE ALLIANCE FAILED. "In my opinion, the Alliance of Labour failed because the members of its council were too^few and left the gate open for those who desired to create a split, but the unity congress that

will open on April 2 in Wellington will avoid that.

"Fir.illy (and when I say finally I mean it so far as my part in this controversy is concerned), it was unnecessary for Mr. Walsh to refer to the support rendered by the seamen, the waterside workers, and other unions to the New Zealand Workers' Union when it was fighting for its very existence. That support is fully appreciated. It was that support that enabled the ' New Zealand Workers' Union to keep going and '. ultimately become, numerically . and, I trust, in unity, the largest organisation in New Zealand. 'It does not wish to use its strength, however, to dominate or attempt to dominate unions in a weaker position or in lesser numbers. Its plea is for unity, and unity alone, and the conference that will be held will prove who are the big men in the Labour movement in this counr try and who are the squibs. There is not one officer in the New Zealand Workers' Union who wishes to become a captain. They are all prepared to remain rank and file members in. any national organisation that may .'ultimately come into being. '.:'

"I admit that the union I represent did not in the past give the support to the political movement that it should have done, but, as I explained at the Labour Party conference in 1930, the support was not given by way of becoming affiliated' to the Labour Party for the simple reason that the union was fighting for its very. existence against the efforts of Labour's opponents to smash it and prevent it from" carrying on the wonderful work it has done for the country workers of this Dominion. Let me say further, that the New Zealand Workers' Union has never been opposed to the .political wing of the Labour movement. We have it on record that during the whole of the time that I have been general secretary of the organisation Ihave on every, possible occasion, advocated support to the Labour Party, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that the members .of the New Zealand Workers' Union scattered throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand, whenever called on to supply finance to fight an election or for any other cause, have done.their level best as individuals and small bodies, and I am proud of the men who have been allied to the N.Z.W.U. since its inception. . -,

"My advice on bej-talf of the workers of this country, independent of whether they are members of the N.Z.W.U., the seamen, or waterside workers, is ■to come together, in complete unity. Let us take the wonderful opportunity that has been given to. us by,'the Labour Government —the right <to form national unions—and strengthen our movement and play our. part,, not in a cat-and-dog manner (fighting each other), but combine on-every possible occasion to fight for the rights of the workers whom we represent, and, in conclusion, I again repeat that .this movement is greater than Mr. Walsh or I. Of course, we-may; have differ- | ences of opinion. . We. may offer -criticism, and criticism, so- long as it is. clean, fair, and above board arid honest, is always helpful in any movement."