DISMISSED WORKERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24449, 7 November 1940, Page 10

DISMISSED WORKERS

SOUTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK MINISTER TAKEN TO TASK OARO UNION’S CHALLENGE (Pek United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH. Nov. 6. Except that some of the 17 men now working between Taratuhi and Kaikoura had offered to strike and that the men working on the section norm of Kaikoura had offered every financial assistance to the men out of work, no further developments in the dispute on the South Island Main Trunk railway construction were reported today No steps were taken by either the'New Zealand Workers’ Union or the men now without employment to settle the dispute. Some of the 17 men oossessing union tickets and still working cn the southern section were reported by the Oaro, branch this afternoon to have expressed a desire tq go out on strike, but they have been asked to continue their work. “We are not recognising the strike because we want to work and we are refused work,” said the Oaro secretary (Mr D. D. Poppelwell), who said the Kaikoura and Aniseed men who were working had promised full financial support. After issuing a statement criticising the comments of the Minister of Public Works, Mr Semple, Mr Poppelwell said that the dispute began early in September, which was in. the last financial year. Any possibility of a settlement was held up till October, when the financial year began, and it was significant that in previous years the union had waited until November and December before collecting money from the men for their tickets. A meeting of the executive at Oaro to-day approved of the following statement for publication:— “We wish to correct some of the statements attributed to the Minister of Public Works.

“First, we have never at any time attempted to run the Public Works Department, and neither are we desirous of interfering with its administration.

“ Secondly. Mr Semple slates that he Is not going to employ non-unionists on jobs. We have never asked him to do so. We have never refused to become financial members of the union. In fact, at a mass meeting held at Puketa, Mr R. Eddy (national secretary of the Workers’ Union) was told that if he would hand the tickets to Mr Eaton, a man elected by the rank and file as organiser, every man would join up with the union there and then in the hall. That gives the lie direct to Mr Semple's statement that we arc not prepared to become unionists. “Thirdly, Mr Semple states that it was not true that Mr Eddy requested him to enforce section 34 of the workers’ agreement. How does he reconcile that with Mr Eddy’s statement at Puketa before 300 and 400 men that he (Mr Eddy) was in bed when he was notified that some few men were refusing to buy tickets, and that he immediately instructed Mr C. E. Baldwin, Canterbury branch secretary, to advise Mr Semple to enforce section 34 of the agreement. Are. some 400 men wrong and Mr Semple right? “ Fourthly, we are not attempting to use section 34 to force Mr Semple to interfere in our quarrel. The actual position is that when the heads of the union adopted the arbitrary attitude of asking the Public Works Department to force us to do something which was fundamentally wrong in our union and opposed to all democratic principles, we simply requested the Minister, who claims to believe in British fair play and justice, and also claims to abhor and detest everything which savours of dictatorship, to suspend any action until he had given us the opportunity to state our case before him. solely with the object of having this dispute amicably settled.” The statement said .that Mr Semple had simply dodged the issue and had concentrated on the question of preference to unionists. “We are not fighting against the preference clause. Among the men in the dispute are some who have fought and suffered for trades union principles just as much as Mr Semple has done. How can Mr Semple range himself alongside officials who have refused to recognise the expressed wish of rank and file at the ballot and appointed a defeated candidate to the position of organiser, and at the same time endeavour to dragoon and use economic pressure on that body of men who were standing purely for the basic principles of trades unionism? We challenge the Minister and union officials to agree to submit this dispute to an impartial tribunal, the findings of which to be binding on both sides.”

CRITICISM OF MR SEMPLE DEMOCRATIC LABOUR LEADERS (Per United Press Association) HASTINGS, Nov. 6. A reply concerning the representations made to the Minister of Public Works, Mr R. Semple, regarding the South Island main trunk situation has been received by the Democratic leaders, Mr W, E. Barnard and Mr J. A. Lee. Questioned to-night, Mr Barnard said that the Minister merely referred them to his statement in the morning’s paper. “When the living of 200 or 300 public works men is at stake, the country will not be satisfied when told that the trouble is only a domestic quarrel which does not interest the Minister,” said Mr Barnard. “The Government, which is responsible .for compulsory unionism, has some obligation to those whom it conscripts into the unions. At the very least the Minister should state ihe facts, so that the public may judge for themselves. ’