MONDAY DECEMBER 20. 1920. UNION SMASHING.

Grey River Argus, 20 December 1920, Page 2

MONDAY DECEMBER 20. 1920. UNION SMASHING.

It is most remarkable that in an industrial district like Greymouth "union smashing" tactics should bo resorted to. It is still more remarkable when we consider the methods adopted by those who do not wish their fellow workers to organise into unions for their own protection. Some of the tactics of- itlle union smashers were brought to light at the Conciliation Council recently held in Greymouth. The assessors ■ had barely taken their seats when Mr E. J. Smith presented a petition to the council, which he said was signed by 98 shop assistants ob jecting to the union's right to make ai: award; and more especially to the pre fci-cnec clause in the proposed award At least their objection was finalrv boiled doAvn to an objection to th< preference clause. Apparently the employers' representatives did not sec their anomalous position in presenting a petition from their own employees, which would have the effect of inur ing the employees and benefiting tin employers. Mr Martin, representing, the Westland Shop Assistants' Union at once brought the employers to task for presenting the petition and remark ed that it was strange that the workers should get theiT employers to re present them. He demanded, that if the petition be presented at all, it bo presented by the rcpresentatioes of those who had signed it. The employers' representatives, after a hurried consultation, sent out word and in a few minutes, three shop assistants, supposed to be representing those who objected to the union, appeared in the Council Chamber. Again Mr Martin showed that he was endowed with a considerable amount of common sense, and demanded that if evidence was to Ibo given, it be given on oath. Tho first witness to be examined was Mr Scott, an employee of C. Smith's, Ltd. He admitted that the petition was given to ' him to sign by Mr R, IB Smith (ia. son of Mr E. J. Smith, who represented the employers) and that ho left tho petition on tho clothing counter. Anything more than that about the petition, he did not know. The second witness, Mr Herring, said the petition was presented to him by Mr Walter Scott, the manager of Ashby, Berg, and Co. but he did not know who typed it. Notwithstanding Mr Martin's efforts he could not find out where the mysterious petition originated. Each witness, . under cross-examina-tion by Mr Martin, admitted that they were not* (against anyone getting a higher rate of pity; and, after the exposures the petition stunt fell flat, although it. is only fair to relate that one of the employers' assessors demanded the right to use it if the proceedings went to the Arbitration Court.

A few questions, relevant to the position should be answered. Why did the employers' representatives present :i petition of anti-union shop assistants? Why was it that when they were questioned as to their actions they were siblo to send out and in a few minutes bring three men from their work in three different shops before the Conciliation Council? Supposing, on the other hand, that the shop assistants' assessors required three witnesses, and

seiit;;OT^;:fpr! ; them, and they left their worlt^ij^ijwry around to the Conciliation jl@p^^ir : would they have got off scot was it, that when their wraip&ses were no longer of any nse to typ employers, it was suggested by an; employers ' representative that , they be allowed to 'retire, so that they could go back to their work at once?* Why was it that in the only two instances brought before, the Council where men were asked to sign the petition they were asked in the one instance by the son of the manager (Mr R. B. Smith) and in the other instance by Mr Walter Scott, the manager of Ashby Bergh's? Why were these managers, and the son of a manager, and the employers' assessors so solicitipus for the non-union shop assistants?. It is an old game, union ' smashing; and to tin old unionist the proceedings' were, to say the least of them, transparent. "We wonder what the shop assistants in Greymouth and district, who will have their wages raised considerably by the agreement , just arrived at, will think ot! the men who have so lent themselves to those who are opposed to unionism? To the employers, and employees who were responsible for the petition we would give a word of advice: Your day is done. If the people want a union they will have one; ami no amount of camouflage on your part will hide the fact that any petition, such as was handed in to the Conciliation Council last Wednesday, is nothing more or less than an employers' inspired petition. While stating the above wo know that there was one at least who sat as an employers ' assessor -who showed a proper conciliatory spirit right throughout the proceedings. When this man said that he knew, nothing: of the petition until it w<as handed 'in to the Council, we could believe him, but the others — well, the least said about them the better. In conclusion it is up to the public of Greymouth and .surrounding districts to show these "union smashers" that their game will not be tolerated on the West Coast. . In case the fearless unionists who have endeavoured by sheer pluck and determination to bring about an award for shop assistants in the Westland district arc interfered with by their employers, we can assure the employers that we will not stand any more victimisation in Greymouth. We have had enough of that in the past and the injustices practised in 1913 have not yet faded from our memory. To the sterling band of trade unionists who have fought the shop assistants' case, right through to the finish we take off our hats. They have risked everything in their endeavours to obtain justice, and their sterling qualities could well be' emulated by some of the "weak knees" in these parts. The great Labour Movement of New Zealand welcomes them into its ranks and says to them: "Comrades, you arc welcome! We are proud of your fight, and we are proud of you, and we will stand behind you till the end.'.'