SERIOUS MOVE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 194, 18 July 1939, Page 9

SERIOUS MOVE

MANURE WORKERS’ STRIKE. DEREGISTRATION OF UNION? Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, July IT. Chemical manure workers now on strike at the works at Otalmlni, To I’apapa, and Westfield are to meet on Wednesday to consider a motion to make an immediate application to cancel the registration of their union under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

It is expected that deregistration of the union under the Act will be adopted by the workers. In that event it will involve the first break-away by a union from the principle of settlement of industrial disputes through the Court of Arbitration since the advent of the Labour Government.

The intended action by the union was communicated to representatives of the owners this niternoon by the disputes committee of the Auckland Council of the Federation of Labour at a conference, presided over by Mr R. E. Price (Conciliation Commissioner).

A request was made by the union to the employers that they should endeavour to effect an early settlement of the dispute by consenting to meet the union without delay on tlie question of an agreement under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. notwithstanding that • deregistration under the Arbitration Act will take some time to accomplish. Th employers’ representative undertook to get in touch with the directors of the companies concerned on the question on Wednesday, so that their attitude will he defined, provided the resolution mentioned is adopted by the workers.

Proceedings were opened at the conference by the submission of the following statement by the disputes committee of the council of the Labour Federation •

“We desire to inform the employers involved in this dispute that the union is taking steps to cancel its registration under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a special meeting for that purpose having been called for Wednesday morning next. In anticipation of the rank and file of the organisation endorsing this proposal, wo request the employers to appoint immediately representatives to meet representatives of the union and the disputes committee of the Federation of Labour with a view to negotiating a new agreement.

EFFECT IN 30 DAYS. “The attitude of the employers up to the present has been that they are agreeable to submit the whole matter to the Court of Arbitration, but this attitude can no longer be persisted in if the union concerned decides to deregister under that Act. There is one position, however, wliiu'i must he faced up to the end, and that is the fact that deregistration under the Arbitration Act will not take effect for 30 days, and the union, therefore, cannot register under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act till this period lias expired. “The disputes committee of the Auckland Council ol the Federation of Labour is anxious to do everything possible to facilitate ail early .settlement of the dispute, and, in the circumstances, we would ask the employers to waive the legal formalities involved and agree, should the suggested negotiations fail, to make joint application with the workers to the Minister of Labour to set up a tribunal, comprising representatives of the employers and the workers, with an independent chairman appointed by the Minister, as provided under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. “Though the disputes committee has made every endeavour to stop this dispute from spreading to other centres and to avoid involving unions other than the Chemical Manure Workers' Union, it is obvious that, it the dispute continues, this will become increasingly difficult. For that reason we urge that the employers should do everything within their power to facilitate the early settlement of tje dispute. FARMERS’ VIE WPOINT.

“Furthermore, tlio workers have no desire to inconvenience tanners by curtailment of supply of lertilisers, which, if it occurred, would in turn reduce our primary production to everybody’s disadvantage. We do 1 eol, however,' that representatives of the farmers appreciate tlio rotten conditions under which members of this union are employed and the inadequacy of the present wage rates. We believe, too, that the employers agree that the viewpoint of the farmers aould be sympathetic toward the workers in this particular case, and that it was for this reason that the employers hastily rejected the suggestion made at the last conference, that a tribunal comprising representatives of the workers, the employers, and the Farmers’ Union, with an independent chairman, ho set up to adjudicate on this dispute. “Tf the employers arc not prepared to assist us in bringing about an early settlement of the existing dispute, we think it is opportune to point out that, now the matter is being handled by the Auckland Council of the Federation of Labour, it is unlikely that members of any union affiliated to the federation will take part in any work that might be calculated to break down the fight at present being put up by members of the Chemical Manure Workers’ Union, and it seems equally certain that, if the fight continues, substantial financial assistance will be forthcoming from unions affiliated with the Auckland council to assist the men concerned. “In the circumstances, we trust that the employers will adopt a reasonable and conciliatory attitude, and, if that is done, wc feel certain that ways and means can be found to effect an early settlement ol this dispute.”

EMPLOYERS’ COMMENT. For the employers, Mr Anderson pointed out that lie considered that the committee had incorrectly stated the position regarding the farmers. As he understood it, the original proposal put forward was that representatives of the Farmers’ Union,_ the employers, the workers, and an independent chairman he set up to deal with the dispute. The reason for its rejection by the employers was not because they considered the Farmers’ Union representative might he biased, but because a tribunal to deal with the case was already in existence, namely, the Court of Arbitration. Workers’ representatives replied that tlio proposal made was on the lines sot out in the original statement, and that, when the suggestion was put forward, one of the employers’ .representatives stated that lie objected to the proposal because lie considered the representatives of the Farmers’ Union would definitely be biased in favour of the workers.