THE MOTUEKA DISPUTE

Southland Times, Issue 22992, 11 September 1936, Page 6

THE MOTUEKA DISPUTE

Criticism Of Mr Sempie

CARPENTERS IN AUCKLAND Reinstatement Of Men (United Press Association.) Auckland, September 10. A demand for the public reinstatement of the workers discharged as a result of the Motueka dispute and severe criticism of the action and attitude of the Minister of Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple) were contained in a resolution passed by the Auckland Carpenters and Joiners’ Union. Letters to this effect are being sent to the Minister and the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage). The letter of the secretary (Mr J. G. Kennerley) read as follows:— “While in Auckland recently you severely castigated the Boilermakers’ Union for writing to the Prime Minister without first notifying you. As we have written twice to you and received no reply I think that this criticism does not apply to us, and I can assure you that the members of our union resent the fact that the communications were ignored. lam quite willing to agree with you that secretaries personally may be of no account, but as the representing voice of the men in the union, that puts a different complexion on the matter. Union’s Resolution. “At a meeting the union passed the following resolution: That this annual and representative meeting of the carpenters of Auckland endorses the recent resolution of the Auckland Builders’, General and other Labourers’ Union regarding the attitude and actions of Mr Semple in his dealing with the Motueka dispute. That this is done after mature consideration of all the circumstances and after repeatedly requesting explanations from Mr Semple, who has merely ignored these communications. We consider that this shows that there can be no adequate defence of his actions, and that he apparently intends to ignore the class whose votes placed him where he now is. We demand that in the case of the men who were victimized, not because they were political agitators, but because they objected to under payment of men by officers of the Public Works Department and also to the actions of their own secretary, they should be publicly reinstated. That this action of the union is not taken in any spirit of antagonism to the present Government, but it definitely reserves the right of constructive criticism. It is considered that nothing could further lower the prestige of the Government in the eyes of the workers, or could in any way cause a greater loss of votes at election time than such undemocratic and anti-working class actions as those of Mr Semple in the Motueka case. “For this reason, the union is compelled to call upon the Prime Minister to make a public statement in the name of the Government dissociating it with such attacks on the most elementary rights of the workers. It was also considered that men who practically take the credit of inventing agitation and stop-work meeting in New Zealand should be the last ones to I object to workers showing their opinj ions in the only ways which are left to them, if they wish to bring matters under the notice of the public.” Letters to Ministers. Mr Kennerley, in his letter to the Prime Minister, pointed out that the union wrote to Mr Semple on July 30 and August 13, in both of which letters Mr Semple was asked to explain his side of the Motueka case. In Auckland recently he had stated that “he did not care twopence for union secretaries.” The letter continued:— “While perhaps agreeing with him, it must be remembered that the secretary is the mouthpiece of the members of the union he serves. In our case this means 2000 carpenters in the Auckland district alone. It should also be remembered that the Labour Party really owes its inception to the industrial movement, and that the industrial side has supplied most of the ammunition for its campaign in the way of finance. Had Mr Semple’s attitude shown any modification, the question would probably have not been carried further, but as he seems to carry on continuously a campaign directed against the workers, the members of the union felt that they had no other course than to forward you the resolution herewith, assuring you of the definite support of our organization for your Government as a whole, but as shown in the resolution, reserving that very definite right to criticize any individual, no matter in what position he may be temporarily placed, who seems, by his actions, to be inimical to the welfare of the workers.”