Disruption Plot Given Check By F.O.L. Delegates

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22954, 24 May 1949, Page 6

Disruption Plot Given Check By F.O.L. Delegates

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, May 23. A manoeuvre of the greatest magnitude was attempted at the recent conference of the Federation of Labour,” said Mr. P. M. Butler, a member of the federation’s national executive, in a statement. “Had it succeeded our entire industrial and political Labour movement would have been wrecked and a definite ultimatum served on the Government* “To understand inch manoeuvres it must be understood that the constitution of the federation states in unequivocal terms that the annual conference determines the policy of the federation as a whole. “Although it was abundantly clear to all thinking unionists who were aware of the facts that the tactics and conduct of those responsible for the management of the affairs of tne Auckland Carpenters’ Union were in conflict with the avowed policy of the Federation of Labour, nevertheless few would endorse the registration of a new union. “These two important factors were well known to the militants. They also knew that many delegates and unions who were definitely opposed to their policy had also, because of the Labour tradition, expressed themselves against the registration of a new carpenters’ Union.

Two Principles

“They thereupon proposed a resolution incorporating two distinct principles: (1) That the conference should refuse to recognise the new union and (2) pledging full support and the strength of all resources to the ‘bona fide’ union.

“Notwithstanding the form of the resolution and the tactics adopted the resolution was carried by 148 votes to 96. This gave a majority of 52, but 44 votes were not cast either way.

“Mr. Barnes (president of the N.Z. Waterside Workers’ Union), had desired the success of the two-way resolution before he left the conference. Unfortunately for the militants Mr. Barnes had in his concluding statements made his intention quite clear. He had said: ‘There can be no confusion in this resolution about ‘‘moral.” It declares that the federation will place'all its strength and resources behind the bona fide union.’

“Apparently Mr. Barnes’ statement had caused great uneasiness in the minds of many delegates who, during the luncheon adjournment, had had time to wonder on the significance of the second part of the resolution and the concluding remarks of Mr. Barnes” continued Mr. Butler. Challenge to Government “When an interpretation of the second part of the resolution was sought, the chairman, Mr. Walsh, indicated just as clearly as Mr. Barnes had that the terms used could only mean an ultimate general stoppage of work and, incidentally, a direct challenge to the Government. “Contrary to charges of undemocratic machinations,’ the matter was decided by the conference itself by a majority vote greatly in excess of the votes cast for Mr. Barnes’ resolution. “The conference decided to recommit the question by 177 votes to 85— a majority of 92. I thereupon moved that the second part of Mr. Barnes’ resolution be deleted*

“While I was speaking an individual caused a disturbance. It was obvious that this incident was calculated to turn the conference into a bear garden.

“I continued with my remarks and to the great chagrin of the militants the resolution was carried by an overwhelming vote of 206 to 68. “Thus the conference gave a definite and emphatic answer to the militants.

“These facts disclose how a transparent trick resolution almost plunged this country into the throes of a general stoppage of work. The good sense of the responsible delegates ultimately exposed the tactics. “The organised industrial workers have given their answer in no uncertain terms and the militants now howl like hungry wolves deprived of their prey.”