ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19696, 25 January 1926, Page 14

ARBITRATION COURT.

WORKERS’ ASSESSOR. BATTLE FOR THE POSITION. HOT WORDS EXCHANGED". (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, January 22. Interesting developments are taking place in connection with the election of an assessor to represent the workers on the Arbitration Court. Mr Hunter, in a circular letter, attacks the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, and Mr A. L. Monteith, who is being put forward as a candidate, by the ultra-radical section. Mr Monteith Kvas the representative of Wellington East in the last Parliament, but was easily defeated by a new man, pledged to" support Mr Coates. In his circular Mr Hunter states: “.All unions have been circularised by the executive officials of the trades and labour council’s Federation asking them to support the nominees of the Wellington Trades Council for the position of workers’ representative, and deputy respectively, on the Court of Arbitration. This circular was issued without any mandate from the Federation, and against the wishes of the the Auckland, Canterbury and Otago Trades Councils. Why was this action taken so impulsively ? Because they were afraid to give the three councils named an opportunity to speak believing their nomine© would be turned dawn. They have been used as a catspaw by friends of Mr Monteith in the Wellington Trades Council. Mr Monteith in his circular boasts of his fighting ability, and states that the best method of defence is attack. All right—l will accept his own declaration. In my experience the man who talks loudest about fight is usually the first to put his running boots on—everybody knows that.” After further discussing Mr Monteith, Mr Hunter quotes letters which he has received commending his work on the court. At a. meeting of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, held last night, consideration was given to Mr Hunter’s circular, and this morning Mr W. Bromley made a statement on the subject. He said ; ' .Mr Hunter’s statement regarding our council is unfair, and rather stupid. It will be agreed by all fair-minded unionists that the trade councils were invited by the federation in November to give consideration to the question of the workers’ representative. The result of that consideration was a, recommendation to the federation that their support should be given to Mr Monteith, and Mr Cornwall respective!y. Surely the council was within its rights in. this matter. The ■wition is somewhat similar to the last election, Mr Hunter on that occasion being supported by the organised unions as a protest against the absence of resistance by the workers’ representtaive to the wage reduction policy of the court. The position now is that the workers are of the opinion that the change made at the bust election did not effect any change Tn that policy, and they 1 feel that many opportunities for effective protests have been missed, They desire to ti’y another change, which is the prerogative of the unions every three years, and should not call for such abuse as is shown in the circular issued by Mr Hunter.” THE COURT ATTACKED. A CHRISTCHURCH RESOLUTION. (Pbb United Press Association.! CHRISTCHURCH, January 22. The Christchurch Moulders Union attacks the Arbitration Court in the following statement: —“The Christchurch Moulders Union, after a careful discussion on the constitution of the Arbitration Court, with its college trained judge, who has a legal mind and class sympathies with rich companies and employers, and in company with the employees’ representative, who, in the interests of the employers, recognises neither logic nor justice on behalf of the workers, states that it has no confidence in the Arbitration Court, and cannot see its 'way to nominate any person to the position of workers’ representative.”