THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Saturday, January 17, 1942. ANOTHER WALK-OUT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24817, 17 January 1942, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Saturday, January 17, 1942. ANOTHER WALK-OUT

A few days ago, when he was explaining important amendments to the National Service Emergency Regulations that are designed to admit of the best employment of industrial man-power during the present period of difficulty, the Prime Minister named the freezing works industry as one of those that are already declared to be essential. He also explained that it would be an offence against the regulations for any person to be absent from Ins work without reasonable excuse, or to be habitually or persistently late, or to fail to perform his work with due diligence and skill. The first reaction by organised labour to the extended powers taken to improve industrial efficiency in the sphere of essential production appears to have come from the Auckland district, where 130 slaughtermen at the Westfield Freezing Company’s works on Thursday walked out of their jobs, rendering 270 other workers idle and dislocating freezing operations at the height of the lambkilling season. The facts may be simply stated. The men were dissatisfied with the bus transport service provided for their use between the works and the city, the service having been recently curtailed under the order restricting the use of petrol. No warning of a protest by direct action was given to the management. The men prefered to stop work for the day at noon and then to inform the company that they did not propose to work after mid-day in future until an improved service was provided. It appears to be anticipated that, the full petrol allowance having been restored to the bus company concerned, the dispute will be quickly settled. But that, in the circumstances, seems to be the least important aspect of the issue that has been raised, which is one of the Government’s ability to enforce its authority over bodies of workers who appear to regard with contempt the regulations governing the terms of their employment.

There have been numerous ' instances in the recent past of strike action being resorted to by industrial workers in defiance of regulations that purport to require them to seek redress through the orderly channels provided for the settlement of disputes. It would be difficult, however, to cite a single case in which the Government, or the - responsible Minister, has taken a strong line with the men involved. Ministerial appeals for “ co-operation ” have usually evoked fulsome professions of “ loyalty ” from the workers, which, in the light of events, appear to be as meaningless as they are hypocritical. In the present case the matter in dispute does not appear to have concerned the freezing company at all, as the arrangements for transport are not under its control. But the company, as the employing authority in an essential industry, was neither consulted nor advised of the intention to strike until that action had begun. If the Government is prepared to tolerate abuses of this kind which simply mock it, regulations intended to govern the employment of workers in reserved occupations might as well be nonexistent. There are certain classes of workers who seem to be a law unto themselves, and they apparently delight in showing their contempt for the authority that seeks, under crisis conditions, to maintain necessary production at a peak level. As it is an offence against the regulations for a worker to absent himself from his employment without “ reasonable excuse,” or to fail to perform his work with “ due diligence and skill,” it might be expected that prompt disciplinary action will be taken against the disaffected group at Westfield. Past experience suggests, however, that a more probable outcome will be the smoothing over of the whole incident, with official explanations that the whole matter has been “ satisfactorily adjusted.”