ORDERING OUT?

Grey River Argus, 19 May 1947, Page 5

ORDERING OUT?

MINISTER & UNION

SAYS B9K. A. iSTAGAN

REPLY TO WATERSIDERS’ LEADERS

j/.A. WELLINGTON, May 18. ■xi was me Minister of nabour, Mr McLagan, who had hastened io make me provocative statement to tnc press about the “ordering out" incident when he received me national Executive, members of tne waterside WorxersUnion recently, said the National Secretary of the union, Mr T. Hili. Earner Mr McLagan commented on an allegation that the national executive or the Waterside Workers’ Union had been ordered out of his room, the Minister said that where the waterside workers’ representatives arrived to meet him on April 30, they brought a stenographer with them tor the purpose, they said, of taking a report of the proceedings. They were told this was contrary to all custom, and he could not agree to it. He (the Minister) was then accused of using Star Chamber methods. During subsequent discussions further charges were made that the Government waa only paying lip service to the idea of porkers’ participation in the control of industry, and that waterside workers were being asked to “carry babies,” and to incur the risk of substantial losses, the Minister said. The last assertion had been made several times previously, and on each occasion (the Minister) had offered to give waterside workers any reasonable and practicable safegurd against the possibility of such losses but regardless of that offer the charge was repeated. During discussion the Government’s proposal lor establishment of a waterside commission of four members (two representing the Government, one represnting the union, nd one the shipowners), the proposal was described by Mr H. Barnes as not genuine.

He (the Minister) took exception to that statement. Mr Barnes denied having made it, and was asked by the Minister to repeat what he had actually said. Mr Barnes did so, and agaid said that the Governments proposal was not genuine. The Minister again protested, and again Mr Barnes denied having made the statement. So that 'there would be no possible doubt about what he had actually said, the Minister asked him to repeat his statement once more nd again Mr Barnes said the Governments proposal was not genuine.

As it was obvious by that time that Mi’ Barnes was not concerned with taking part in a reasonable discussion to try to reach agreement on the matter, the Minister said that he could not carry on the discussion on those terms; that he was not going to carry on an altercation with the union’s delegate’s and th it the interview was accordingly flushed. The Minister then asked his secretary to open the door, and the delegates left the room. MR HILL’S ACCOUNT

Mr T. Hill, commenting on the Minister’s statement, said that it was the Union which had refrained from giving publicity to the unpleasant event, although it leaders were affronted. “We are a disciplined Union, and I do not anticipate any trouble as a consequence of the Minister’s bellicose attitude,” said Mr Hill. "However, the waterside workers, in common witha the other trade unionists of this country are not going to accept a situation in which he trade union movement would become a functionary of the Government of the day.” Mr Hill said that after various meeting with the Minister to discuss the reconstructed Waterfront Industry Commission and worker control in the industry, the Union Executive asked, at a further meeting on April 30, to have their own typist present, or to have copies of the Ministers own stenographic records of previous meeting. The Minister refused both requests.

“The Minister had employed his typists in half-hour relays,” said Mr Hill. “This was an innovation, indeed. In all of our discussions with the previous Ministers of Labour, no latter what the Government negotiations wbre conducted in the atmosphere of mutual trust.” Mr Hill said that it seemed that Mr McLagan was given to this type of thing. Inspite of the (Minister’s refusal to give records that he had taken previously, to the executive officers, it was decided to continue negotiations, “as we were acting in the interests of seven thousand waterside workers, their wives and dependants.” At the stop work meeting on April 30, the Minister’s action in continually misrepresenting the remarks of Executive members was taken exception to, said Mr Hill. When Mr McLagan announced that the Government was prepared to give the Union one nominee on the new Commission of four, the members were rather taken aback, as the previous Commissions gave the U.nion much bett representation. Our president, Mr Barnes, remarked that it seemed if this was the Government’s decision, that the proposition was not genuine. The Minister became very heated and he accused Mr Barnes of stating that the Government was not genuine. All of the Union representatives agreed with what Mr Barnes contended—that all the talk of worker control in the industry was spurious, if this meant the Government’s decision—and that there was no intention of giving responsibility to the workers doing the job. At this stage, continued Mr Hill, the Minister lifted the telephone receiver and melodramatically called his Secretary to open the door. The watersides’ delegation accordingly retired,” but. with the dignity befitting responsible representatives of responsible citizens,” he said. The Executive subsequently reported this meeting to the membership in moderate and dignified terms. ’

Mr Hill said that the Union Executive had since metj the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. After two hours of discussion during which Mr Fraser was courteous and friendly, and agreed that the ordering out incident should not

have occurred, an understanding was reached that the Union Executive should discuss the Prime Minister’s suggestions, and advise its opinions later. The Prime Minister had now been advised of the Unions findings. “We will await a reply from the Prime Minister, not from the Minister of Labour.”

MR McLAGAN’S REJOINER

CHRISTCHURCH, May 18. “I have read Mr Hill’s statement with some amusement.” . said the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan today. “It’s absurdity can be gauged from Mr Hill’s opening assertion that I ‘had hastened to make a provocative statement to the press,’ when I replied to garbled accounts emanating from Mr Hill and others, and which had been getting press publicity for more than a week before. “Mr Hill has given two different accounts of the alleged ‘orderingout’ incident, both incorrect,” continued the Minister. “There was no, ordering-out when Mr Barnes, following upon his earlier discourtesies, described the Government’s proposal as ‘not genuine,’ and persisted in doing so, I told him that the discussion could not go on in that way; that I was not going to enter into an altercation; and that the interview was concluded. I then quietly asked a member of my staff to open the door, and the delegates left without a further word being uttered by oneone. It should be noted that Mr Hill has admitted that the Government’s proposal was described as not genuine, and has himself used the term ‘spurious’ in reference to it. Mr Hill’s self-proclaimed dignity and responsibility would be fully appreciated if he would publish advice he gave privately to member of Cabinet during the last waterfront dispute as to the attitude he considered the Government should adopt towards his union’s demands at the same time as he publicly urged support for his union’s demands. Mi’ Hlil’s displeasure at any reference to his foolish and baseless statements at the sittings of a tribunal recently is understandable. These statements were not only taken by a Government stenographer, but were also recorded by press reporters, and had been published before they were quoted at the Federation of Labour meeting. The allegedly friendly spirit in which the union’s delegates attended the meeting on April 30 is vzell illustrated by grossly offensive references to myself, other members of the Government and officers of the Federation of Labour in an article written, just before the meeting by the union’s spokesman, Mr Barnes, and published during the following week. Epithets such as ‘stooges and liskspittles, boss-class toadies, and potential fascists.’ and accusations of using ‘underhand methods and wooden horse tactics,’ are not usually regarded as friendly. It was after having applied these terms to us that Mr Barnes commenced his discussoins of the Government’s proposal. Mr Hill’s statement that the Prime Minister ‘agreed that the orderingcut incident should never have occurred,’ is utterly untrue. The Prime Minister did not agree that there had been any ordering-out, and he said definitely that no Minister could allow a Government proposal to be described as no genuine, as that was equivalent to describing the Government itself as not genuine. During his meeting with the union’s executive, the Prime Minister was courteous and friendly, as he always ife; but it was noticeable that the union spokesman’s manners were not quite equal to the occasion, and he had to be reminded by the Prime Minister that he should extend to others the courtesy that had been shown to himself.

“Challenged to bring forward their vaunted no-confidence motion at the annual conference of the Federation of Labour and the Laboui’ Party, Mr Hill has replied that he will not hesitate, and will not flinch if I decide to ventilate the matter. Apparently, Mr Hill has not hesitated to somesault from the offensive to the defensive, and will not flinch from a complete volte face. In denying that the union demanded my removal from the position of Minister of Lab-resi-gn, Mr Barnes is very niggardly our, and in saying that I offered to with the facts. He was told by the Prime Minister that his request meant, in effect, my setting aside and eventual removal, and that the Cabinet had no intention of doing so. I intimated that if, at any time, Cabinet consideredthe position should be more suitably filled, nobody would be more happy than I in giving it up, but that, is somewhat different from Mr Barnes’ version. “Finally, the Prime Minister did not tell the deputation that the Government would not in any ciicumstances, agreed to workers conti ol in any industry in New Zealand. What the Prime Minister actually told the deputation was that the Government would not in any circumstances, agree to the syndicalist form of control demanded by Mr Barnes, but that the Government was in favour of. and would give sympathetic consideration to workers’ representation in the management of industry.” _ . At the meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and other members of the Cabinet on May 15, Mr Barnes admitted having described the Minister as not genuine. The Government proposal for a commission of four members was not the Government’s last word. Mr McLagan stated that it was put forward as- a basis for discussion, and that it was open to amendment. At a meeting on April 18 Mr Barnes proposed on behalf of the union that the new watersiders’ commission should consist of four members, three representing the union and one the Government. Under such a set-up with its delegates in complete control of the commission, the union would itself decide the rates of pay for its members, would fix the conditions of employment of its members, and by means of the judicial power of the commission, would itself determine the terms of settlement rf any dis-

pute brought before the commission. Mr McLagan said he considered that the proposal was quite impracticable and said that it was not acceptable, but he did not say it was not genuine. Another proposal made by the union’s delegates was that at any port where an extended form of contract work was adopted the union alone should have the right to fix the contract rate to be paid, the Government and shipowners to have no voice in that matter. The Minister remarked that this would probably result in the contract rate being fixed by the highest bidder at a stopwork meeting, and that it could not be agreed to by the Government, but did not describe it as not genuine.

On May 9, the Minister received a letter signed by Mr Barnes stating that a meeting of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union had expressed complete confidence in the national officers and executive and had invited the Minister to attend a meeting of the union to show cause why a motion of no-confidence in him as Minister of Labour should not be carried. Hr (Mr McLagan) at once replied that the discussion of such a motion at a meeting of the union would be ineffective, but that there were two meetings to be held in a few weeks’ time —the annual conference of the New Zealand Federation of Labour and the annual conference of the New Zealand Labour Party—at which a resolution of that nature could have a decisive effect. He (the Minister) invited Mr Barnes to place his motion before those conferences. Mr Barnes’ reply has not yet been received.

Mr Fraser asked the waterside workers’ executive to resume their discussion with the Minister on the subjects of the Waterfront Commission and extended contract work. Mr Fraser suggested that the commission system of control might be abandoned and that they might go back to the national disputes committee system and deal directly with the shipowners. The Prime Minister had said that while the Government would not agree to the introduction industry, it wanted to establish an industry, it wanted to establish a representative Waterfront Commission on a reasonable and practicable basis, and would also like the waterside workers to consider’ favourably the adoption of a system of work on the waterfront which would give them greater interest in the loading and unloading of ships, and a greater reward in return for increased interest and efficiency. The executive indicate it would discuss the Prime Minister’s suggestion and would advise him of its decision later.