WEST COAST TRADES COUNCIL

Grey River Argus, 20 August 1942, Page 3

WEST COAST TRADES COUNCIL

PAST PRESIDENT’S REPLY

To Federation of Labour

(To The Editor)., Sir,—ln the “Argus” 01. August 1-, appears a letter, with the name ol I<. Cornwell attached, which P U1 ‘ sorts to be a reply to a statement made by the Editorial Board of the Magazine Page regarding the expulsion of the West Coast Trades council by the National Council of lie N.Z. Federation of Labour. ine Editorial Board, (of which I am a member), previously intimated it would not enter into a wordy debate by correspondence with the officials of the Federation on the rights and wrongs of the expulsion. Tne reasons are quite simple and understandable. There was perfect unanimity between delegates of the late | 3’rades Council on the decisions i which preceded the final expulsion, move. Each delegate had the con-1 fidence of his organisation and w'as ] :n a position to explain to his union the nature of, and the reasons for, Hie vendetta being conducted against the Council by the Federation heads. Since not one trade union on the Coast has shown the slightest sign' of givmg support to the Federation autocrats against 'the latte- Trades Council, (or against individual members of that body), there was no point to be gained by continuing to compile replies to the abusive fulminations from Wellington. However, since the latest screed is more of a personal attack, I am replying to it as one of the individuals attacked. “HEADS’’ ARE WORRIED. . It seems to me that the Federation “big-noises” are worried. They have acted against the working-class movement in this country by smashing one of the most active and progressive sections of the Federation —and for altogether inadequate- reasons. Resolutions of protest from West Coast trade unions, couched in very plain language, are reaching their destination with disturbing frequency. A further cause for concern to the gentlemen of Wellington is tne fact that, despite their Hood of misrepresentation, the resolutions are being carried unanimously at v, ell-attended meetings of miners, Vi harfies and others. A CHANGE OF TACTICS. Readers who took the trouble to wade through the Federation letter of August 12, will note a decided change of ground when compared to their previous diatribe. Most of the delegates of the late Trades Council are no longer rats, scabs and liars. They are just poor dumb fools, who have been ‘led by the nose by a handful of malignant and cunning disrupters. Even the Editorial Board of the Magazine Page has received a thin coat of whitewash ! With the exception of one or two of their number, they are now just a bunch of gaping idiots who do not know what it is all about. (I doubt whether the Council delegates and Editorial Board members will appreciate this latest description of then’ characters by the Federation heads, more than they did theprevious one; but it does show that the pressure of the trade unions is having some effect.) Now, only an unspecified number o£ individuals (unnamed with the exception of myself), are singled out as an excuse for the disfranchisement of thousands of West Coast trade-unionists. Readers will further note that several red herrings have been drawn across the trail in an attempt to mislead the unwary into believing that the small-minded “big men” of the Federation had sufficient reason to penalise the trade union movement of the Coast. For example: What does it matter if, (as alleged in the latest letter), some members of the late Council were anti-war last year and pro-war this year, any more' than it matters that two of the biu chiefs of the present Federation walked out of an industrial conference in 1928 because the Conference decided to accept the Arbitration Court system, whereas to-day these same two are numbered among its most vociferous supporters ? (See 1928 Nat. Industrial Conference Report). Not one bit. as far as the issues at strike are concerned. MAGAZINE PAGE EDITORIAL BOARD. In regard to the Editorial Board ol the Magazine Page, it is stated' that the “or.ginal” Board consisted ol disrupters', some of whom were later “retired” for tactical reasons, and replaced by “respectable” dummies. Let me say that the Board has always possessed a majority of wellknown and respected Labour Party members. Three members of the Board who resigned did so for very good reason. Two left the town; and the other lived too far away to be able to attend meetings regularly. Two of the three were active Labour Party men. The Board has three directors of the “Argus” among >ts personnel, two of whom havebeen on the Board since its inceptl°Whether the members of the Editorial Board have paid their levy to the Labour Dailies Fund, I do not know; but if the gentleman who mixes the mud for the Federation anproaches them they may be prepared to answer that question. 1 would advise an approach by letter rather than in person. fhe y ar® somewhat peeved about, the abusrv cnithets hurled at them by the Federation “heads,” and these rough worker-fellows have scant respect for the seat of the pants of even the high and mighty. Sneaking tor my•■e°f I was not in the country when the lew was in operation. 1 therefore bow my head in gumy shanw. The charge that the late Tiades Council interfered in the, affairs ol the United ’ Mineworkers Union is stupid, and finds not the slightest support in the local branches ol that It may interest the gentlemen ol the Federation to know that our statistics showing the true increase in the cost of hvmg, and which, we are informed, were consigned to the Federation’s waste-paper basket in favour of figures from their “dope bureau showing a very minor increase have now been brought up to date and adopted by a very important union as showing the correct movement of prices I And by tne v’aw in their -venemous letter ot Julv 22nd., it was stated that the Trades Council made no L the slightest attempt to prove its cla’.m that the cost of living had substantially ncreaeed since the war commenced. Now they quite calmly admit that we did I

WHOSE STATEMENT ? We dare not deny, says the Federation scribe, that the- a . de ® Council never made the published f-tement regarding tne Dobson miners and the Coal Commission, but that the statement was made by me the President of the Council. All’l can say is that the late Counch was quite definite and unanimous that it did make the statement and fhat I did not. The minutes of the Council confirm this, as the Federation officials are well aware if thej have taken the trouble to read them. THAT FAMOUS ARTICLE. Tn relation to the article “It Can Happen Here,” which I . wrote, and

for which I secured the unanimous endorsement of the Editorial Board, it is claimed that I made exhaustive enquiries to see if I could be “had up” for libel, ’ before submitting it for publication. This is utterly untrue. I did not, either before or artsr pubncat.on, seek such advice from anywhere or anyone. After compla.ncs from the super-sensitive souls of the Federation, I made a statement to tiie Trades Council on the matter. This was accepted, and I was commended on the article. The Council, however, agreed to witndraw the article at the request of the “Argus” Directors, who reared an action for damages against the paper by certain Federation olliciais. ■fhe statement I made before the Trades Council was exactly the same that 1 later made before tne Federation Conference. ACROBATICS.

It is interesting to note that in the first Federation letter of July 22nd., it states quite definitely that the late Trades Council requested the Federation to have the wages of certain Italian workers reduced. In the second letter it is admitted that the Federation only “surmised” that we “intended” to make this request. As a matter of fact the Council simply asked for information on the matter as one of our affiliations had requested it. The Council did not even discuss the matter. This shows how cautious readers should be in accepting any part or future bald statements by the Federation chiefs. On the matter of the “Zealandia” it is obvious that an attempt is bemg made to raise the ugly head of religious sectarianism among workers on the Coast. This effort, I believe, will only create contempt in the minds of 'trade-unionists for thoseresponsible. A MOVE THAT FAILED. Federation heads may be mortified to learn that the move carried on between one of their number and an official of my union to have ms- painlessly removed as the delegate of my union on the 'Trades Council, resulted .in a complete fiasco. At the last annual meeting of my branch, when this move was exposed, a motion of confidence in me was carried unanimously and I was re-elected to my position. THROUGH IMPARTIAL EYES.

delegate to the 1941 Federation ConJim Donald, Australian fraternal ference, expressed in an art.cle keen disappointment at the reactionarypolicies advocated by the leaders of the Federation of Labour. He also expressed amazement at what, he called the lack of tolerance displayed by the leadership towards obviously honest delegates who dared to raise their voice against the ideas and policies advocated by the big chiefs. These observations are very significant coming from an impartial ’observer from a country which has a trade union movement second to none in progressive outlook and militant lighting strength. It provides ample food for thought for the trade unionists of the West Coast. THESE LONG-RANGE WARRIORS. In conclusion, why do not these long-range pen-swingers come down to the Coast and deal before the rank and file with this handful of alleged disrupters who quail and cringe in fear in the presence of the high-soul-ed intellects of the Federation ? Over the past twelve months they have been repeatedly invited, requested, and challenged to do so by the late Trades Council. Is it that these mighty men are afraid to venture where they would be without their usual bodyguard of yes-men and ap-plause-leaders ? Or is it that they are afraid of being completely exposed before the West Coast workers ? I am etc., T. PRATT, Fast-President, of the (Assassinated) West Coast Trades Council.