N.Z. MINERS’ COUNCIL ATTITUDE ON THE CARPENTERS’ DISPUTE

Grey River Argus, 23 August 1949, Page 2

N.Z. MINERS’ COUNCIL ATTITUDE ON THE CARPENTERS’ DISPUTE

National Secretary Relates the Facts (To The Editor) Sir, —So much has been said and written about the actions of the Miners’ National Council in relation to the recent carpenters’ dispute that it would not be out of place to givei the full facts to your readers, as I know full well that your paper circulates in the mining townships on the West Coast. After th e carpenters had agreed to recommend their members to return to normal work, under the agreement as decided by the Arbitration Court, and to allow the Federation of Labour to handle their case for them, Mr. F. L. Langley, President of the. New Zealand Carpenters’ Union, requested the members of the National Council to meet and discuss the position with him. Mr. Langley stated that two members of the Miners’ National Council had suggested to him that they should withdraw their injunction from the Court, and thereby enable the Conference to discuss the question. Mr. Prendiville, President of the Miners’ Organisation, asked Mr. Langley that if, in the event of the injunction being withdrawn, and it coming to a scrap, could he get the rest, of his Union to stop work, to which Mr. Langley stated that his members would not stop on a national basis. Mr. Prendiville then recommended Mr. Langley to ask for an adjournment of the injunction for one month to enable the Federation to have a reasonable chance to help, as, if the injunction was withdrawn, the opposition would be withdrawn and th e ' new Union registered. Had Mr. Langley accepted this advice, his members would have been back working on the job normally, with his Union intact and every chance of the Federation being able to kill, the new Union. However, in the morning, Mr. Langley advised the Council that his Union had withdrawn their injunction, the way then being open for discussion.

It had been mentioned to Mr. Langley by F. Crook and D. Sewart, members of the Miners’ National Council, that perhaps a discussion could take place on the carpenters’ dispute if the injunction were withdrawn. Mr. Langley stated that they thought the suggestion a good idea, and they were prepared to consider the withdrawal of the injunction if the Chairman of Conference would permit a discussion, as, if the injunction were withdrawn, it could no longer be claimed that the matter was subjudice. F. Crook and F. Langley sent a note to the Chairman, Mr. A. W. Croskery, asking him to meet them outside in the passage. The Chairman did meet Langley and Crook, and the suggestion was placed before him. and he agreed that he would do all he could to allow a discussion if the injunction were withdrawn, and that all that was possible would be done in the dispute. The following day, Friday, 20th. May, Mr. Langley asked Mr. W. Purdy if he remembered what he (Langley) and Crook had reported the Chairman as having said. Mr. Purdy stated that he had a clear recollection of what had been said. Langley thanked Purdy and said his interpretation was the same as his (Langley’s), but it was not that of the Chairman. Crook agreed' that Langley and Purdy were correct. F. Crook then explained to the Conference his and Langley’s discussion with the Chairman—the result of it all was that the discussion on the Carpenters’ Union was permitted. After a lengthy and heated discussion the following resolution was carried: “That under no circumstances will this conference recognise the scab union in Auckland, and it resolves to place all its resources and strength behind the bona fide carpenters’ union.”

This was carried —148 for, 96 against—the miners voting for the resolution. It should be explained that F. Crook, approached H. Barnes after he had finished his address, and asked him for a copy of his resolution. He replied: “I am if I know what I moved, but it was something like this.” Mr. Crook took down in shorthand writing what Barnes thought he had moved. The resolution, when read out to the Conference, was slightly different to the one given to F. Crook. W. Purdy has also a slightly different one; however, the text was the same in general terms. During the lunch hour on Friday, 20th. May, the Miners’ National Council agreed': “As the case was in the hands of the Federation of Labour Executive, we act upon instructions from the Executive, and that no action be taken until such instructions are made known to all affiliations.” This would ensure that any action taken would be of an organised nature, and would prevent spasmodic action being taken, which could only result in chaos. There was an opinion that this might not be the interpretation of the whole of those present at the conference. F. Crook looked for H. Barnes, the mover of the motion; but was informed that he had left, by plane, for Auckland at mid-day. He then saw John Roberts, who had seconded the motion by H. Barnes, and who agreed that the interpretation was correct. Toby Hill and W. B. Richards were also contacted on the same matter. As there was still doubt. F. Crook was authorised by the Miners’ National Council to ask for a Chairman’s ruling if our interpretation was right. The Chairman stated it meant a complete stoppage on Monday. A motion for recommital was moved by P. M. Butler and placed before the conference, the Miners’ National Council voting against re-commital, which was carried by 177 for; 85 against. P. M. Butler moved a further resolution, which deleted the latter part of the motion moved bv H. Barnes. Th c Miners’ National Council voted for the motion moved by H. Barnes, and against the deletion. The Miners’ National Council supported the ,de-registered union on every occasion at the conference. I am etc., F. CROOK, 5 Secretary, United Mine Workers of N.Z. August 18. 1949.