REVIEWS THE STRIKE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8612, 24 December 1913, Page 6

REVIEWS THE STRIKE

TUB FEDERATION’S POLICY OF DISRUPTION.

Tiio executive of tho United Labour party lias issued the following statement regarding the strike:—• “ The agreement mado between tho Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union, the employers, ami tlio New Zealand Federation of Labour was to remain in force from February Ist, 1012, until January .'list. 101-1. When the employers made that agreement with the Federation of Labour they know :—(1) That the federation was a revolutionary body. (2) That it was not registered 'under the Arbitration Act. (3) That the Wharf Unions the federation was acting for were repudiating tho Act. (4) That a New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation existed, registered under tho Arbitration Act. “ With a knowledge of these facts tho employers made t ho agreement with tho New Zealand Federation of Labour. By that agreement the employera granted terms and conditions such ns they had never given to tho Waterside Workers’ Unions whilst they remained under tho Arbitration Act. Tho employers thus encouraged the workers’ unions to repudiate the Act: they practically ignored tho Waterside Workers’ Federation, and assisted in strengthening tho body whoso representatives told them plainly, ‘ Wc are out to take your property from you by direct action.’ “ Keeping those facts in mind will make tho incidents of this strike better understood.

“To strengthen the Federation of Labour, and in pursuance of the ‘ one big Union’ idea, the secretary of the Wellington Waterside AVer leers’ Union induced the members of the Wellington Shipwrights’ Society to break up their yiociety, divide up their funds, and join the AVatorsido AVorkers’ Union. The shipwrights attempted to make an agreement with the shipowners for improved terms and conditions, and, not being able to settle, they went out on strike, without, as far as wo can learn, n, formal resolution of tho union they belonged to. Mr Farland called a special meeting of his union on October 20th ‘to consider tho questions of payment for travelling time and how ‘they would help 'the shipwrights on strike.’ That meeting was called at a time when tho great body of the ■members could not be present. It was attended by about 200' out of tho 1700 members. It was derided to hand the _ shipwrights’ case over to the Federation of Labour, and then a motion was carried to call a •stop-work meeting of the whole union on October 22nd, at 8 a.m. A reforlonce to n-ulo 32 of tho union’s rules ■shows that, had tho rule been observed this,step-work meeting at 8 a.m. could not have been held. Tho meeting was advertised on October 21at,_ and tho employers intimated that if it was held they would regard the stoppage of work as breaking tho agreement. The stop-work meeting was held on October 22nd, from 8 a.m. till 9.30 a.m. Tho labour foreman put some vnon on to jobs that others were on previously, and tho men thus left out claimed to be put hack in the jobs they had been at. A further stop-work meeting was called for 1 p.m., to consider tho matter of the reinstatement. The president of the union advised that, by stopping work, ‘the agreement was broken from A to Z, and tltey wore on strike.’ At the afternoon mooting it. was decided to strike work until tho men wore reinstated in their old jobs. This decision was clearly in entire disregard of rule 52 of tho union’s rules, which reads thus: —‘No strike shall bo entered into until a ballot has been held to determine the opinion of tho whole union on the question in dispute.’ “The employers held a meeting sJt 3 p.m. The union wanted the particular men reinstated. Tho employers said other men wore put on because of the stop-work meeting, and refused the union’s request. Thus the strike ■was entered upon. Tho general facts go to show; —(1) That the shipwrights Joined the AA'aterside AVorkers’ Union, ■and were classified in the ‘Shipwrights and slip-workers’ branch.’ (2) The agreement in force between the employers and tho union was never amended to inclndo shipwrights. (3) The shipwrights, as a branch, came oat on strike without observing the provisions of rule 52. (4) The shipwrights struck work without direction of the union to which they belonged, and tho anomalous condition was established of a minor branch of the union being on strike whilst tho rest of the union members were at work. (5) Tho Waterside Workers’ Union held a stop-work meeting to consider: —(a) The question of payment of travelling time for slip workers—which according to clause 28 of their agreement should have been dealt with by a local committee, representing both the employer and the union, (b) The question of assisting the shipwrights on strike, when, we understand, it was jdrehdy decided to hand that over to the control of tho Federation of Labour. “Tho union, then, under the guidance of its secretary appears to have pommittod those most serious mistakes:—(l) Overlooking, ignoring, and breaking its own rules. (2) Countenancing some of its members going on strike whilst the rest remained at ivork. (3) Forgetting these words in clause 28 of the agreement: ‘The essence of this agreement being that tho work of tho employers shall always proceed in the customary manner and shall not on any account whatsoever bo impeded,’ and deliberately breaking what is therein defined n.s ‘the essence of tho agreement.’ (4> Being altogether too ready to ‘down tools’ and run tho risk of losing a good agreement, knowing that its continuance depended only upon mutual consent of the parties thereto. The Waterside AVorkers’ Union, after tho strike was opened, paid their dues ;nto tho Federation of Labour. Control of tho strike was later handed aver to tho federation executive, not :>no of whom is a- waterside worker. At first the federation leaders insisted" on reinstatement of the agreement as their solo claim.

“Tho employers mado tho following offers : —1,1) Registration of the agreement under tho Arbitration Ant. (2) Registration of tho ’union under tho same Act. (3) Reinstatement of national agreement with provision for a penalty of £"1000 for, breach of clause 28. (4) Same condition for a. local agreement with £SOO penalty. (5) An offer that tho employers would abide by tho decision of a ballot of tho men, taken under Government, supervision, in settlement of the dispute, (G) Offer to submit tbe whole matter to Sir Joshua Williams as arbitrator.

“ These offers were from time to time refused by tho Federation of Labour and then tho employers withdrew the offers. Later on the strike leaders wanted the employers to settle on the penalty condition, but that failed. Still later on, tho question _ of Sir Joshua Williams was again raised, and the strike leaders wanted tho employers to agree to that, but the employers refused, taking the ground that the time had gone past for any such arbitration, as they were bound to recognise tho new union that was formed. “Throughout tho strike the Federation of Labour leaders have used, and countenanced the u.so of, strongly inflammatory language. Violence, was employed by tho strike sympathisers towards stopping trade and inflicting injury on individuals. THo Government maintained public order by tho us© of ordinary and special police, and also assisted the employers in directions that enabled them to procure labour. The employers aided in forming an Arbitration Union, over which they have exercised some control, and the same was registered under tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act, although at tho time of the registration the members of said union were nob engaged in the industry. “Tho outstanding facts for consideration are : —(1) That tho employers and the Federation of Labour have been jointly responsible in_ passing a heavy burden on to the public by their actions preceding the strike. (2) That this strike was not properly a contest between the employers of wharf labour and the waterside worker, but really a trial of strength between tho Employers’ Federation and the Federation of Labour. (3) That throughout there was exhibited on tho part of the Federation of Labour an utter disregard of everybody’s interests but their own, and a groat lack of steadiness of judgment, balance, and foresight. “A general survey of the situation must convince the public and all true unionists that the United Federation of Labour’s revolutionary policy is on© of disruption in tho Labour movement and of deliberate anarchy as affecting public interests. Through the federation’s advocates in the Waterside Workers’ Union they broke their own union rules, tore up their constitution, disregarded tho agreements they had mado, and plunged themselves, their fellowworkers, and tho whole country into serious trouble. The existence of this propaganda of irresponsible revolutionary action has destroyed many workers’ unions which it took years of hard toil to create. Tho remedy lies in the hands of the workers. Each individual must take an active and intelligent interest in the affairs of his union. If sound trades unionism is to live it can only be by a straight-out repudiation of the doctrines and methods of insane revolutionism. Tho workers must return to tho constructive lines of action which enabled the trades councils in past years to secure most of the labour legislation we possess. Our unions must federate together in one, not to violate or oppose the law of our country, but to uphold tho law and make it better for our people as a whole.”