THE QUARREL

Evening Star, Issue 26103, 17 May 1947, Page 9

THE QUARREL

MISTER ANDJATERSIDERS MR MoLAGAN GIVES THE FASTS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 16, Commenting to-day on tiio ai.egation that the National Executive of the Waterside Workers’ Union had; been ordered out of his room, the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, said the facts of the matter were that when the waterside workers’ representatives arrived to meet him on April 30, they brought a stenographer with them for the purpose they said, of taking a report of the proceedings. They were told by the Minister that this was contrary to all custom, and that he could not agree to it. The JVlinister was then accused of using ” star ehamboi, methods. , ~ “ During the subsequent discussions, the Minister’s statement said, “ further charges were made that the Government was only paying lip service to the idea of the workers’ participation in the control of tho industry, and Kiat the waterside workers were being asked to ‘ carry babies ’ and to incui risk of substantial losses. The lattei* assertion had been made several times previously, and on each occasion the Minister had offered to give the waterside workers any reasonable and practicable safeguard against the n°ssibilitv of such losses, but regardless of that offer the charge was repeated. “ NOT GENUINE ” CHARGE. “ During the discussion of the Government’s proposal for tile establishment of a waterfront commission or four members —two representing the Government, one representing the union, and one the shipowners—the proposal was described by the president of the union, Mr H. Barnes, as not genuine. The Minister took exception to that statement. Mr Barnes denied having made it, and was asked by the Minister to repeat what he had actually said. Mr Barnes did so and again said that the Government's proposal was not genuine. “ The Minister again protested and again Mr Barnes denied having made the statement. So that there would bo nq possible doubt about what he had actually said, the Minister asked him once more to repeat his statement, and again Mr Barnes said the Government’s proposal was not genuine “ As it was obvious by that time that Mr Barnes was not concerned with taking part in a reasonable discussion for the purpose of trying to reach an agreement on the matter, the Minister said that he could not carry on the discussion on those terms when the Government’s proposal was described as not genuine. Ho was not going to carry on an altercation with the union's delegates, and the interview was accordingly finished. The Minister then asked his secretary to open the door and the dele-

gates left the room. “In connection with Mr Barnes’s repeated denial of his etatoment,” the Minister’s statement added, “ it is interesting to remark that at a meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and other member of the Cabinet on May 15. "Mr Barnes admitted having described the Minister as not genuine. Such a remark would have been thoroughly in keeping - with Mr Barnes’s well-known standard of courtesy, but actually he did not go so far at the meeting on April 30. He did, however, go much farther in abuse of the Minister, the Government generally and officers of the. Federation of Labour in an article which he published on May 6 and which had been written before the meeting on April 30. THEY WANTED 3 TO 1 REPRESENTATION. u It should be pointed out that the Government’s proposal for a commission of four members was not the Government’s last word on that subject. It was made clear by the Minister of Labour that it was put forward as a basis for discussion, and that it was open to amendment if a more suit T able commission could be devised. “ At an earlier meeting on April 18, at which the question of reestablishing the Waterfront Commission was discussed, Mr Barnes proposed, on beha'f of the union, that the commission should consist of four members—three representing the union and one the Government. Under such a set-up, with its delegates in complete control of the Waterfront Commission, the union would itself decide the rates of pay for its members, and would fix the conditions of employment of its members, and, by means of the judicial power of the commission, the union would itself determine the terms of settlement of anv dispute brought before the commission.” “ The Minister considered that proposal quite impracticable, and said that it was not acceptable, but did not s&y it was not genuine. Another proposal made by the union’s delegates was that at any port where the extended form of contract work was adopted the union alone should have the right to fix the contract rate to be paid, the Government and shipowners to have no voice in that matter. The Minister remarked that this would probably result in the coutract rate peing fixed by the highest bidder at a stop-work meeting, and that it could not be agreed to by the Government. He did not descrihe it, however, as not genuine.

MINISTER’S CHALLENGE. “ On May 9 the Minister received a letter signed by Mr Barnes, stating that a meeting of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union had expressed complete confidence in the national officers and executive, and had invited the Minister to attend a meeting of the union to show cause why a motion of no confirence in him as Minister of Labour should not be carried. On the same day the Minister replied, stating that discussion of such a motion at a meeting of his union would be ineffective, but there were two meetings to be held in a few weeks’ time—the annual conference of the New Zealand Federation of Labour and the annual conference of the New Zealand Labour Party—at which a resolution of that nature could have n decisive effect. Accordingly, the Minister invited Mr Barnes to place his motion before tlidse conferences. Mr Barnes’s reply had not yet been received. “ At a meeting with the Prime Minister and Cabinet Members on May 15 a request was received from the Watcrsiders' Union which would mean, in effect, the setting aside and ultimata removal of the Minister of Lcbour. Tho Prime Minister replied that he and his Cabinet colleagues had full confidence in the Minister of Labour, and had never had greater confidence in him than now.

“ At the same time the Prime Minister asked the waterside workers’ execu-

tive to resume their discussion with the Minister on the subjects of the waterfront commission and extended contract, work. Mr Barnes suggested that the commission system of control might be .abandoned and that they should gb back to the National disputes Committee system and deal directly with the shipowners. The Prune Minister said that while the .Government would not agree to the introduction of a syndicalist form of control in. any industry, it wanted to bring about worker representation in tbe management of the waterfront industry. ■

“ The Government wanted to establish a representative waterfront commission on a reasonable and practicable basis, • and' would also like the waterside workers to consider favourably the adoption of a system of work on the waterfront which would give them a greater interest in the loading and unloading of ships and a greater reward in return for the increased interest and efficiency resulting from that direct, personal interest. The executive indicated that they would discuss the Prime Minister’s suggestion and would advise him of their decision later.”