AFTER THE STRIKE

Southland Times, Issue 19290, 8 July 1924, Page 5

AFTER THE STRIKE

RAILWAY MINISTER’S DEFENCE REPLY TO LABOUR PROTEST RAILWAYMEN’S BROKEN PLEDGES. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 7. A resolution was carried by the unanimous vote at a recent meeting of the Wellington Labour Representation Committee “strongly condemning the Minister of Railways for the vindictive action” taken by him against members of the A.S.R.S. on their resumption of work after the strike and for his enforcement of the 48-hour week before the tribunal had any opportunity of adjudicating of the dispute. “We sincerely hope,” the Committee stated in forwarding the resolution to the Minister, “that you will not have the power to act similarly after the next election.” MINISTERIAL REPLY. The Minister (Hon. J. G. Coates) has forwarded a reply to the Secretary of the Committee (Mr J. Thorn) protesting that the allegation of vindictiveness contained in the resolution is grossly unfair and cannot be substantiated in any way by the actual facts of the case. Further, he says, to state that the 48-hour week was forced on the men before the tribunal had had an opportunity of adjudicating on the dispute indicates “an utter lack of appreciation on the part of the Committee of the attitude adopted by the Government and the steps taken to bring about a settlement of the dispute before the strike took place. The Committee is apparently unaware of, or conveniently ignores, what actually took place.” NEGOTIATIONS AND THEIR SEQUEL. Mr Coates states: A definite arrangement was entered into between the Executive Council of the Society and myself, that I should meet them on March 14, and go through the whole of the matters in dispute. The conference took place, but the Executive insisted upon a decision being first given on the wages question without the case being heard in respect to the other 71 requests. This I could not agree to and consequently the Executive jettisoned the arrangement and asked that the claims be referred to a Board. This was agreed to and a Board on the exact lines asked for by the Society was set up and commenced sitting on March 24. The Executive, however, adopted the same tactics as it did at the conference with myself and the Board’s operations were rendered abortive by the Society’s representatives withdrawing, as the Board would not agree to separate the wages question from the other claims. This action precluded the consideration of many other important matters, Mich as the extension of the weekly hours to 48, and indicates quite clearly not only that the statement of your Committee that I enforced a resumption of 48-hour per week before giving the tribunal an opportunity of considering it is totally incorrect, but that the inability of the tribunal to consider the question was entirely due to the action of the Society’s representatives in terminating the activities of the Board at that stage. Every possible effort was made by me to facilitate further negotiations to obviate the trouble and another tribunal was actually under offer to the Society to hear their claims when they decided to call a strike. By striking, the Society undoubtedly scrapped its agreements with the Government and thereby forfeited the whole of the concessions and privileges which had been enjoyed by its members. Although the Government was in a position to withdraw these concessions, with the exception of the reinstatement of the 48-hour week, for which the men are receiving 48 hours’ pay and the abolition of 8-hour per day, the men are at present working under the conditions of the agreements in force when the strike was declared. With regard to the resumption of the 48-hour week, I may say that instructions were given on May 14 providing for rostering on extended hours, whereas it was not until Monday, June 2, that the Society intimated its acceptance of the Board, which is at present dealing with the claims.” SOCIETY AFFORDED EVERY OPPORTUNITY. “From the foregoing,” concludes Mr Coates, “it is quite clear that the Society has been afforded every possible opportunity of having its claims thoroughly examined and considered. Its representations have been heard by the Government with toleration and patience, but the Society, after failing to fully take advantage of the facilities provided, took recourse to the unconstitutional means of forcing its claim on the Government regardless of the fact that they had failed to establish a case before the class of tribunal they had been agitating for for some considerable time. With regard to the final paragraph of your letter, if it is intended to support the unconstitutional action taken by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants on Easter Monday when every facility was placed at its disposal for its claims to be dealt with in a constitutional manner, I can only conclude that the subsequent step taken by the Society in withdrawing its affiliation with an outside organisation will be distinctly to the advantage of the railwaymen concerned.”