TWO CASES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26770, 13 May 1948, Page 6

TWO CASES

The insatiate desire of organised industrial unionism to command a greater voice in the planning and the administration of this country’s affairs was one of the most conspicuous features of the recent Labour Party conference in Dun- ' edin. A good many of the remits and resolutions that were considered could be regarded as having no greater-significance than the action of a child who reaches for the pretty red embers in the grate—and the probability o£ dire result would be about the same—but others were indicative of a more determinate trend, a trend towards the grasping of power by any available means, with no considered thought of the responsibilities of holding power. The pages of the daily press have contained, in recent months, countless examples of this deliberate disregard of the obligations that are owed by sections of industrial unionism to a Government avowedly sympathetic as well as to the country as a whole, but two examples come to mind which have a particular pertinence. The first is of recent memory and concerns the “ beer boycott ” by the miners of the West Coast. There, because two men dared to be honest in their attitude towards this ridiculous boycott, the production- of vital coal supplies was held up, and the men were subjected to such cruel and contemptible victimisation that they were compelled to surrender their livelihood. Yet not one hand in authority was raised in defence of the democratic rights these men were supposed to enjoy. For them there was no official inquiry, no opportunity for appeal or redress-against intolerance. The second case has a parallel with the first in that it contained potential embarrassment for the Government by action on the part of a powerful union. In this instance a man who is an acknowledged Communist was transferred from the Mangakino hydro-electric project to another district. This man, as secretary of the local branch of the New 'Zealand Workers’ Union, undoubtedly commanded considerable influence on the job, and as the result of his being given notice of transfer still another hold-up occurred in a vital industry. This time, however, the Government was abject in its regard for formal procedure. A tribunal, with a judge as chairman, was set up to consider questions which, in the ultimate analysis and without disrespect to the tribunal, could be reduced to one only —whether or not the engineers charged with carrying out this huge and costly undertaking were competent to supervise the work with impartiality and efficiency. The decision of the judge, acting alone, was, as might reasonably have been expected, in favour of the engineers,

the written judgment containing the comment that the chairman was satisfied that the man concerned had been “ engaged in policy or activity prejudicial to harmony, smooth running and effective execution of work.” In view of the oft-repeated professions by official Government spokesmen that it is the Government’s intention to govern and to have no truck with “fellowtravellers ” these two cases are instructive examples of the manner in which determination can be tempered by expediency. The question whether either is illustrative of intelligent democracy at work might well be contemplated by the leaders of those unions which have yet to learn that responsibility is, or should be, the reward of political maturity and industrial integrity, not a cloak to be donned or doffed at will.