FREEZING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 1976, 18 November 1921, Page 6

FREEZING DISPUTE.

CASE FOB EMPLOYERS. OBSTRUCTION BY WORKERS ALLEGED. (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night. The Canterbury freezing workers’ dispute, which now forms part of the Dominion dispute, in which the freezing companies have cited the unions, claiming a general reduction of wages, came before the Arbitration Court this moaning. The dispute, in so far as it affects the workers in the Wellington industrial district, was heard in Wellington at e the beginning of the month. The Court then decided that before giving its decision it would take evidence in ChristchurchTo•day’s proceedings were, therefore, in the nature of a continuation of the earlier hearing, both sides being represented by the same advocates as before. , . Mr Cookson, opening the case for the employers, said that in accordance with the suggestion made by his Honour at the conclusion of the Wellington hearing, a conference of representatives of the employers and unions had been held in Christchurch, but very little progress had been made towards a settlement of the working conditions. Mr Cookson went on to refer to the employers’ decision to continue the payment of the bonuses in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne works, which would normally open before the Court’s decision could be delivered. It had been made abundantly clear, from the evidence of a number of witnesses at Wellington, that these works would be ready to begin operations at an early date. The employers had the right to expect that where this was necessary the officials of the Workers’ Federation would place no obstacles in their way. He regretted to say, however, that just prior to the resumption of the conference on Monday afternoon, a telegram was received ■ from the Hawke's Day freezing .works, stating that, under instructions from the Federation, the men had refused to start until a new award was made. The secretary of the Federation (Mr Niall) refused either to admit or deny that any such instructions had been given to the men. When requested to send a telegram, asking the men to begin work, hei refused to do so. Subsequently Mr Niall made a statement that work would not be begun until a copy of the new award was available in every district. In the circumstances, the refusal of the employers to proceed further with the negotiations would be readily understood. He regretted exceedingly that he had to make this statement, but he thought it only fair’to the employers that the Court should be made fully aware of the false position in which they had been placed. It could not be reasonably expected that the employers would continue negotiations with a body of.men, who, while outwardly professing to be conciliatory, were deliberately adopting obstructive tactics to prevent the operations of the companies from proceeding. „ . . Evidence was then called in support of the employers’ case.