TO THE WORKERS.

Grey River Argus, 1 September 1927, Page 6

TO THE WORKERS.

OF NEW ZEALAND. Comrades.—We, the members of th? Mine-workers a\d Seamen’s Unions of N.Z., desire to call your attention to certain salient features in connection with the control of the N.Z. Worker Printing and Publishing Company, which is at present appealing to you for financial assistance to the extent of £15,000. A brief reference to events of a few years ago is necessary in order that the present state of affairs may be appreciated. In 1921 the Alliance of Labour appealed to its affiliated unions to invest funds in the “Maoriland Worker/’ as it was then called. The object underlying this ap peal was to bring the paper under the control of the industrial Labour movement as represented by the Alliance, io SuiAEq suoiu/p Xq popojjuo.) At that time the paper was largely no financial interest in it, the largest shareholders then, as now, being the Miners* Union of N.Z. The appeal of the Alliance of Labour fell for the most part on deaf ears, but the Seamen’s Union responded promptly by putting up £2OOO. In 1923, the “ Maori land Worker” was wound up. It was reconstructed under the name of the “New Zealand Workers Printing and Publishing Company, Limited.” A Board of Directors was appointed representative of the Alliance of Labour and its constituent unions, the Railway Servants, Waterside Workers, Freezing Workers, Drivers, Seamen and Miners. At this time, and up to the 15th of June of this year, the fully paid up capital was in the vicinity of £10,500 in £1 shares. Of these the Miners hold some 4000 shares, and the Seamen 2000. The Miners and Seamen’s Unions wero thus the financial backbone of the Labour paper, having subscribed between them more than 57 per cent of the total capital. As time went on, it was apparently thought desirable to give the N.Z. Labour Party a say in the control of the paper, and two represents fives of the Party eventually secured election to the Board of Directors. Var ious other changes have taken place on the Board from time to time, and last year the Directors were Messrs J. Roberts. A. Cook, and L. Glover (Alliance of Labour), P. Fraser and W. Nash (Labour Party), Kennedy (Ccoks and Stewards’ Union), J. O. Johnson (Wellington Waterside Workers), A. Parlane (Drivers’ Union), J. Churchouse (Railway Servants), W. Bromley (Molders’ Union), C. Fittes and W. T. Young (Seamen’s Union), the last named being Chairman of Directors. In January last a dispute arose in the Seamen’s Union which resulted in Messrs Fittes and Young being expelled from that organisation. It is worthy of note that during the dispute, and although the Seamen’s Union informed tho “N.Z. Worker,’’ the Alliance of Labour, and the Labour Party, that Fittes and Young had been expelled and no longer represented the Seamen, all three bodies persisted in accepting the individuals as bona fide representatives of the Seamen, and W. T. Young continued to hold his position as Chairman of Directors of the “Worker” Company in face of his repudiation by the rank and file. At the annual meeting of shareholders of the Worker Company on June 23rd of this year, the Mineworkers’ and Seamen’s L T nions sought to have one-third representation elected to the Board of Directors. Considering that they held between tnrm 57 per cent of tbo shares, it was not unreasonable that these two unions should desire to have one third representation on a Directorate of twelve, six of whom were retiring.

The high principled gentlemen who control the destinies of Labour’s of' ficial journal, however, appear to have determined that the duly accredited representatives of the Unions having the largest financial interest in the paper were at all cost not to be allowed to have any say in the control and running of tho financial side of the company. As to the policy of the paper, the Articles of Association of the Company mako special provision that the industrial policy of the paper shall be decided from time to time by conference of the Alliance of Labour and that politically the newspaper or newspapers shall advocate only the policy laid down from time to time by conference of the New Zealand Labour Party, provided such policy is not antagonistic to the Alliance of Labour. Ft is quite clear by the Articles of Association that the Miners and Seamen, even if having a third representation on the Board of Directors, would have no authority or power to change the policy cf the payer. However, they would be in a position, if elected to the Board of Directors, to watch over the financial interest of the paper on behalf of the membership of their organisations, who have subscribed jointly £6OOO out of the total paid up capital of £11,182/2/6. We ask the Directors of the N.Z. Worker Company why they were so concerned about preventing the Miners and Seamen from being represented on the Board of Directors? Are they concerned about the policy of tho paper, which is controlled by the conference of the Alliance of Labour? Or have the Directors some thing of a business or financial nature to hide from the representatives of tho Miners and Seamen?

The means by which they prevented the Miners and Seamen from having representation on the Board of Directors warrants the careful consideration of every member in the Trade Union movement of New Zealand. The executives of the Alliance of Labour and the New Zealand Labour Party without consulting their affiliations, or their rank and file, procured from some source or other sufficient money to enable each body on the 16th oi June last, to take up £lOOO worth of shares each. We understand of this amount only 7/6 per share has been paid up. Armed with the voting power conferred by tjie possession of these 2000 shares, and with proxies represent ing practically every other share out? side those held by the Miners and Seamen, the aforesaid high-principled gentlemen, at the annual meeting of share holders six days later, proceeded to keep the Seamen and Miners out, and to elect Directors, one of them an indi vidual who has been expelled from the organisation he formerly represented, and who now represents nothing. Details of the voting were as follows:—

F. D. Cornwell (Painters’ Union) 6292 votes, elected; P. Fraser (N.Z. Labour Party) 6292 votes, elected; L. Glover (Alliance of Labour) 6292 votes, elected; J. O. Johnson (Wellington Waterside Workers) 6292 votes, elected; E. Kennedy (Cooks’ and Stewards (Tinon) 11,431 votes, elected; W. T. Zoung (no union) 6292 votes, elected The following were unsuccessful:— E. Lock (Miners’ and Seamen’s Union) 5083 votes; E. J. Dyer (Miners’ and Seamen’s Union) 5066 votes; F. Newfield (Miners’ and Seamen’s Un ion) 5066 vo'tes; F. P. Walsh (Miners and Seamen’s Union) 5066 votes. | Analysis of the foregoing facts and ( figures gives rise to two questions; questions to which the? workers of this country must demand answers. Why did the officials of the N.Z, Labour

Party and the Alliance of Labour lend countenance, and support to an indi vidual who has been expelled from a working class organisation? Why did the officials of the Alliance of Laboui vote against accredited representatives of constituent unions in favour of rep resentatives of organisations not affiliated with tho Alliance In other words, why did they use money presumably paid in affiliation fees by con stituent unions to purchase voting power wherewith to defeat the representatives of those Unions? Comrades:— The N.Z. Worker Company is appealing to you for financial support. Before you accord such support we urge you to join us in demanding investigation into the unsavoury business, whereby the subscribers of £6OOO out of a total share captain of £11,182/2/6 have been jockeyed out of representation, and in ensuring that the control of the “Worker” shall be as above-board as befits an official working class jour nal. (Signed) F. P. WALSH, (Seamen’s Representative). E. LOCK, (Miners’