MANGAKINO TRIBUNAL EVIDENCE; “CLAPHAM A TROUBLE-MAKER”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22617, 21 April 1948, Page 6

MANGAKINO TRIBUNAL EVIDENCE; “CLAPHAM A TROUBLE-MAKER”

(p.A.) HAMILTON, April 21. Evidence that L. V. Clapham, secretary of the Mangakino branch of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, was the one man in the whole country whom he did not wish to see employed on any construction job under his control was given by John T. Gilkison, engineer in charge of the Waikato hydro-electric. development, during lengthy evidence before the tribunal inquiring into the circumstances of the recent strike of workers at. Mangakino. The strike followed notice to Clapham of his transfer to work elsewhere.

Welcomed An Argument Witness told the tribunal that while he welcomed an argument with militant unionists as being the ‘‘staff of life 1 ’ on construction works he and other engineers took strong exception to what they considered to be scurrilous attacks on them by Clapham in the publication “Mangakino Spark.” Witness said he met Clapham at Karapiro in 1940. In 1941 Clapham became secretary of the Karapiro local branch of the New Zealand Workers’ Union. In September of that year there was a brief strike of tunnellers over their rates of pay. The strike, which was unnecessary and brought about by unconstitutional | procedure, was in his opinion caused by Clapham's agitation. That opinion was shared by other members of the staff and about 30 per cent of the men themselves had told witness that they believed that Clapham was responsible for the strike. Clapham left Karapiro in November, 1941, and witress later was reprimanded by a head office official for allowing such a trouble-maker to go to Fiji. Witness said that in the six years following the 1941 tunnel strike he was proud of the record of industrial relationships at Karapijo. A production council —the first on any public works job in New Zealand —had been formed and functioned well. The council took the form of friendly meetings between the engineers and the staff. Clapham returned to Karapiro in February, 1947, but with others was put off shortly afterwards owing to the diminishing amount of work remaining to be done. He later applied for employment at Mangakino. Engineer Overruled “I refused,” said witness, “because of his propensity to cause trouble.” However, Clapham’s case was taken up with the head office of the union and on April 9, 1947, an instruction was received from the Minister that Clapham should be employed. “1 understand the Minister told him that if he caused any trouble he would be instantly dismissed. Later the Minister visited the job and gave Clapham a severe warning along these lines.” Witness said he returned to Mangakino on December 18, 1947, just after Clapham’s transfer had been notified. Mr. J. E. Engel, for the Crown: Is it your opinion that his transfer was justified? Witness: I think he was dealt with very leniently and tardily. I think the records justified his dismissal long before December 12. Witness said be had visited a number of construction jobs overseas and had found housing conditions there crude by New Zealand standards. Mangakino was the best construction village in the world with the possible exception of some war plants near large cities overseas. Mr. Engel read a number of extracts from the “Mangakino Spark.” One passage in the first issue stated: “This publication can be the weapon of militant workers on this job to struggle for better wages and to uphold the principles I have long since abandoned.’ signed Rupert Simple. Witness said he considered that this passage was insolent and impertinent to a man who had done more for the ■workers in public works camps than anyone else in New Zealand. Effect of Remarks Mr. Engel: It was a straight-out accusation that the Minister of Works was a traitor to his party and his principles? Witness: That was the implication. Commenting on other extracts from the “Mangakino Spark,” witness described them as calculated to stir up trouble. The men knew that better amenities at Mangakino necessarily meant slower progress in building the township. They had themselves asked for roofs over the heads of workers and their families before halls and other public buildings were erected. Other articles in the “Mangakino Spark” criticised the basis of the production council at Karapiro, -but the only complaint about that council during its functioning at Karapiro came not from the men but from the staff. “I am convinced from reading Clapham’s writings and other things that his aim is job control,” said witness. “He has done his best to run down the present management. His next step is the production council at Mangakino appointed not on an advisory basis, as ■we had it at Karapiro, but on an executive basis. I, personally, would seriously oppose such a development.” It had been agred by the department that advisory production councils should be set up on major works in New Zealand, but such councils could not be tolerated only if they remained on an advisory basis. He considered that Clapham had no loyalty to the Labour Department in New Zealand. He had stated in the “Mangakino

Spark” that the Communist _ Party drew its strength from the writings of Marx, Engels, Stalin and Lenin. Clapham’s comparison between Mangakino and Belsen was a piece of scurrilous writing likely to promote disharmony, witness said. If a member of the staff wrote as Clapham had done his mates would probably run him out of camp. The Public Service Commissioner would certainly not tolerate such an attitude by any member of the service. Maraetai Tunnel Job Witness said that the Government had proposed that work on the diversion tunnel at Maraetai should be carried out on seven days a week under conditions very favourable to the men. He was surprised on returning from abroad to find that this scheme had not been made operative and was told that the union did not want the tunnellers to work a seven-day week. He could only draw the conclusion that a sevenday week in the tunnel was to be used as'a lever for other things. Witness said the engineers who had tendered their resignations did not want to leave the department or to leave an uncompleted job for which they felt a real attachment. They wanted to see the work finished, but had become convinced that they must go to preserve their self-respect even if it involved personal sacrifice. Cross-examined by Mr. Hair, witness agreed that it was fair to state that some of the troubles arose from the fact that men had been sent to Mangakino before accommodation and other amenities could be provided. During a lengthy cross-examination, witness said the engineers did not look on an argument with militant unionists concerning matters on the job as “trouble.” Good, above-board discussion was the staff of life, but the engineers did object to being stabbed in the back. “It is scurrilous writing, criticising of the staff and secret meetings on the job to which he object.” Instructions To Get Rid of Him Mr. Hair said that when Clapham was dismissed at Karapiro in March, 1947, the reason given was non-avail-ability of work. Wat that the correct reason? Witness: When 1 heard he was there I told the employment officer to get rid of him as soon as he could, provided it was done in a fair way. Clapham was not sorted out for particular attention. Witness acknowledged that from Karapiro he wrote to or telephoned the engineer in charge at Mangakino saying that Clapham was not wanted on the job there. “Clapham was the one man in New Zealand I did not want on a job of mine in future. What I have learned since has convinced me more than ever of rightness of my decision.” Witness said his objection to Clapham was due not to any fault of the latter as a worker, or any faults of his personal character. It was because witness was convinced Clapham was a bad influence on any job. Reasons For Opposition Mr. Hair: It that because he is a Communist? Witness: No. I am quite impartial politically. Mr. Hair: Are you impartial politically? Are you a member of the Labour Party? Witness declined to answer any questions about his politics. Mr. Hair: We did not want to make this matter a political one. but the case presented for the department has largely made it so. Witness: Clapham has branded me as a Nationalist stooge and Tory engineer in that 'rag of his. Mr. Hair: Can you give any concrete examples of the actions of Clapham which have interfered with the progress of the job? Witness: Yes, putting his name to that thing called the “Mangakino Spark.” Do you think the writing of that sort of thing is helping to get the job done? Our engineers are accused of political partiality, and I resent that for myself and for the others. Mr. Hair: But apart from that, nothing? Witness: As far as I am concerned I am prepared to rest my case on that. Witness added, however, that he considered tiiat an interview given by Chapham to the Rotorua newspaper had slandered the management of Mangakino. Other evidenve would bring out further charges against Clapham concerning events while witness was overseas, but he personally based his objections to Clapham chiefly oi> what the latter had written. Arnold Edwin Clark, resident engineer at Mangakino, said he was in charge while Gilkison was overseas. In August, 1947. a Rotorua newspaper had published criticism of the management nf the Maraetai project citing Clapham as the source of information. Much of the criticism recorded in the interview was based on insufficient knowledge of what was being done, and of improvements already in hand at that time. (Proceeding.'