TRADES DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 20228, 13 July 1927, Page 6

TRADES DISPUTE

ARAPUNI WORKS DISSENSION AMONG UNIONISTS CASE GOES BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, July 12. The trades unions’ disputes which have occurred at Arapuni were freely aired at the Arbitration Court when as the result of dissension among the unionists and their dissatisfaction at the comprehensive agreement entered into between the Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth Company and the New Zealand Union of Workers, the ruling of the Court on several matters was requested. The company sought the registration of the renewal of its agreement? and asked whether it was entitled to enter into further agreements with the crafts unions and with labourers’ unions other than the New Zealand Workers’ Union. Hitherto the conditions of work of all men at Arapuni have been governed under the agreement in question which provides for the preservation of award rates of pay for unionists of various classes such as engineers and electricians. Mr S. E. Wright appeared for the company in support of the application for registration and Mr B. L. Hammond, assistant secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, in the other matters. Mr A. Cook, secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union and Mr G. C. Stove, Auckland district secretary for the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, appeared in support of the agreement which was opposed by Mr J. F. W. Dickson and Mr R. F. Barter on behalf of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and Mr Dickson and Mr J. H. Sutherland on behalf of the general labourers’ union.

Mr Sutherland tabled a petition signed by 201 men at Arapuni who desired to secede from the New Zealand Workers’ Union. Mr Hammond said the agreement had operated satisfactorily until some of the crafts unions and the New Zealand Workers’ Union, formerly “loving friends,” disagreed. Some of the members of the latter body desired to secede in order to escape the terms of the agreement to which they originally had been parties but that he said would make for impossible conditions and unfairly penalise the company. Mr Dickson said the crafts union had not been consulted in the renewal of the agreement, a contention supported by Mr Barter.

Mr G. Davis, for the Drivers’ Union, Mr M. P. O’Leary, for the Electrical Workers’ Union, and Mr David Lindsay, for the Arapuni engineers each voiced a desire for separate channels of communication between their bodies and the employers. Mr John Kelly, branch president of the New Zealand Workers’ Union at Arapuni, was closely examined on his evidence as to a meeting called to consider the renewal of the agreement. He said only members of his union voted and he denied haying* been requested.to call a general meeting of all men on the job. Mr J. B. Williams, organiser of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, said the previous witness had refused to call a meeting of all sections and the “strike committee” had prevented witness from personally approaching the men. Mr Cook, for the New Zealand Workers’ Union, said it was essential to have one union control on such a job as Arapuni. Mr Hammond suggested the agreement had worked satisfactorily for two and a half years and the only trouble arose when at the time of the strike, some opportunists took advantage of the position in an endeavour to advance themselves and their respective unions.

Mr Justice Frazer after a brief retirement of the Court said it was unable to agree in toto with any of the arguments adduced. It had been found most satisfactory in works like Arapuni which closely resembled Public Works schemes to have all the men operating under similar conditions while preserving their respective trades rates of wages and to that end the agreement had been framed. There had always been a provision whereby the company could contract individually with crafts unions in the matter of wages although other working conditions were of necessity covered under a general agreement between the New Zealand Workers’ Union and the company. That answered one of the questions and the agreement would be renewed as desired. As to whether the company could contract with other labourers’ unions than the New Zealand Workers’ Union, his Honour said there was no strict legal bar but it would be impossible to carry on work at Arapuni under separate agreements with two labour unions and that being the case, the Court could best answer this query in the negative.