NO FURTHER PROGRESS IN WANGANELLA DISPUTE

Evening Star, Issue 26091, 3 May 1947, Page 6

NO FURTHER PROGRESS IN WANGANELLA DISPUTE

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 3. A reply to union criticism of condition in the workshops of William Cable and Co. Ltd. is given by Mr. James Cable, managing director of the firm, in a letter replying to Mr P. E. Warner, secretary of the Wellington Boilermakers and Metalworkers’ Union. Mt Cable claims that the company has acted in the Wanganella dispute’in a constitutional manner. The despatch of these letters was the only development in the dispute over the Wanganella to-day. CONDITIONS AT WORKS. Mr Cable, in his first letter to Mr Warner, says: “ You raise in a general way the conditions that apply at our works, but you. will. agree that the works will bear favourable comparison with the majority of shops of similar size and age throughout New Zealand.' My company has for many years past been improving the works wherever possible, and many efforts have been made to acquire property adjacent to the works to enable us to transfer departments at present housed in our existing works to new premises and thus provide additional facilities for the men, I feel sure that it is unnecessary for rte to emphasise either to you or to the men the verf great difficulties that exist, under to-day’s conditions, in carrying out a complete, modernisation programme in works the size of our Kaiwarra shop. When it has been possible in other works with which this company is associated facilities have been automatically provided without pressure, or even a request, from the men or from the unions. Ample evidence exists in my company’s records of the efforts we have taken at Kaiwarra. I feel sure you will agree with me that no good purpose can be served by a continuation of the existing position, and I thank you for your offer to assist in overcoming the present difficulties, Any further suggestions you hare in this regard will receive the earnest consideration of my company.” CONSTITUTIONAL methods. The second letter reads: “ I can assure you that your reading of the award, as it affects the Wanganella dispute, differs in many material directions from advice we have received on 1 the same subject. Our advice throughout has been that my company acted constitutionally in connection with the Barrett’s - Reef transaction. The arrangement made to pay members of your union 17s 6d an hour was fair and reasonable, in accordance with the award, and, as the men said at the time, quite satisfactory. However, as you are aware, this question has been included in the order of reference of the tribunal and we have agreed to abide by the ruling of the tribunal. Frankly, as the whole question of the Wanganella dispute is in the hands of the tribunal, the comments made by you in your letter relative to the Wananella do not appear to my company in any way to justify the men’s action in either refusing to work on the Wanganella or to resign en masse from our works. It must be quite clear there is nothing'that either the union, or my company can do pending the decision of the tribunal. It does ; appear to me that there is one factor that is continuously overlooked by the union, and that is that my company, in the Wanganella case specifically, and in most of its other work, is, in effect, an agent on behalf of its customers. Work is undertaken by us on terms and conditions governed by existing awards, and we believe we are no more entitled to depart from the terms of the awards than are the men. Constitutional methods are laid down in all awards for dealing with disputes, and, while-we recognise that disputes continually arise and that there can be two interpretations of any particular provision, the fact that there can be genuine disagreement over such matters cannot in our opinion justify •the action your union has taken in connection with the Wanganella in concurring in the mass resignations.”