MINERS’ DEMANDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10851, 17 March 1921, Page 5

MINERS’ DEMANDS

FIGHT FOR A CONFERENCE OBJECTION TO EMPLOYERS’ “ARBITRARY REPLY.” OBJECTIONS CRITICISED. Claims for a new agreement covering the mining industry in New Zealand were recently received by the Mineowners’ Association from the Miners’ Federation, which sought a conference for their consideration. The employers resolved, however, that they could not agree to meet the federation’*! representatives until certain far-fetched demands—the most important clauses — had been withdrawn. This decision was communicated to the federation, and was discussed at a meeting of the executive some days ago. Mi’ Arbuckle yesterday forwarded the following letter to Mr W. Pryor, secretary of tho Coal-mine Owners’ Association : \ MR ARBUCKLE’S REPLY. “EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENTS.” “I have to inform you that I received your letter of February 25th, replying to my federation’s request for a conference, for the purpose of considering a new agreement. “I have now to advise that your reply has been dealt with by my executive, and I have been instructed to write your association expressing my executive’s resentment at the arbitrary manner in which you have replied to our request for a conference, and we further protest against tho misleading and untruthful statements contained therein being given to the Press. “In dealing with these statemente, I will take, first, No. 1, referring to the August, 1919, and February, 1920, conferences. In these, you state, the employers then took up the position that these particular proposals were so revolutionary and far-fetchtkl, and would result, if granted, in such a great increase in the price of coal to the general public, that unless they were withdrawn by your federation as subjects for discussion the employers would not proceed with the conference. While this is true of the August, 1919, conference, it is quite the reverse of the conference in February, 1920, at which the whole of the demands were discussed. Not one of them was withdrawn until something suitable was put.,in its place, and the long fight that took place at that time was for the purpose of having the right to discuss our proposals. I would point out that we would have that right under the Arbitration Court if the proposals were filed under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and, further, that Ido not know of any union or federation that has not discussed its Hours of work with its employers when maxing their agreements during the last twelve months. Yet you tell us that you will not discuss same t

“No. 2. You also state, that in Apsgust last the Australian coal miners made similar demands, but that they have not been conceded hy the Australian coal-mine owners. They certainly were not grapted at that particular time, but they are to be discussed before the Federal Coal Board at an early date, and further, one of the clauses objected to by your association, namely, the abolition of the afternoon shift, was abolished some time previous. “No. 3. Next comes your extraordinary statement that the Broken Hill strike, which arose in March, 191 S, over the insistence upon demands similar to those hy the Broken Hill metal .unions, was terminated after 20 months by the special tribunal appointed by the Government deciding against them. This statement is certainly contrary to fact, as this tribunal graiited these miners seven hours per day and five days per week and compensation against occupational diseases.

“If these statements as used hy you were good reasons why our demands should not be discussed, then the correct statements of same should not only be in favour of ns having them discussed, but in having them granted without discussion. Further, let me take the latter part of your letter which states that you reserve the right on behalf of the members of your association to submit suoh proposals as they may deem necessary to amend existing agreements for discussion at the conference. Does j,t not seem strange that you should delegate to yourself the power to discuss just what suits yourself, and on the other hand deny us the same right ? “Now, in conclusion let me say that the agreement having expired, it is therefore necessary for ns to have, a fresh one in its place We haive submit-, ted proposals for same, and your side have tho right to submit counter-pro-posals. Then there is the present agreement, which oan be accepted as the basis of settlement. Surely it is possible for an agreement to he arrived at between tho two organisations, if they meet pn these grounds. Personally, I think so. If, on the other hand, your association insists on the withdrawal of our proposals, then there must certainly be a fight for the right of a conference and tp discuss the proposals adopted by the whole of the miners’ unions, seeing that your organisation is delaying the bringing about of a new agreement by refusing a conference. Wo must insist that any agreement arrived at must date back tp the end of February, 1921. _ _ “Trusting that your association will arrange for a conference at an early date, and that same will bring about a satisfactory result, —Yours faithfully, etc.” '