The Government And The Watersiders

Southland Times, Issue 23773, 22 March 1939, Page 4

The Government And The Watersiders

T) EFORE they agreed to resume L' normal working, the Wellington watersiders were addressed yesterday by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Marine. Exactly what the Ministers said is not known, as the meeting was held privately; but according to the official statement issued by them afterwards, they condemned, without exception or qualification, the adoption by unionists of “go slow” tactics and other methods of direct action.

The Government, they emphasized, had supported and encouraged all forms of genuine unionism and had assisted the workers generally to obtain the highest standard of living that industries could pay. The Government, through the Labour Department, assisted in the enforcement of those agreements but insisted that once an agreement was come to any dispute or disagreement arising out of the agreement should be referred through constitutional channels to be there dealt with by disputes committees. . . . The Ministers also pointed out plainly the steps the Government would be compelled to take if the nation’s economic life continued to be threatened by “go slow” or other detrimental tactics.

Why the watersiders decided to follow their obstructive policy is still obscure. According to the national secretary of the New Zealand Watersiders’ Union, their grievance was that the employers had refused to negotiate with the national union; but in his reply the secretary of the Waterside Employers’ Association is able to show that the long delay in the award processes has been no fault of the employers. But whether the men’s complaint was just or unjust, true or false, their method of expressing it was contrary to the whole system of arbitration under which they work. There is provision in every award for the redressing of grievances by constitutional means; and, in this case, the watersiders and their employers had agreed only a week before on additional means of ensuring co-operation at every port. Unions cannot have the protection of awards of the Arbitration Court and at the same time flout them. That point has not always been upheld by the Government, and undoubtedly its failure to insist on rigid adherence to constitutional methods of arbitration has been partly responsible for the watersiders’ defiance of the terms of their agreements. But the latest action of the watersiders, following, as it did, a special appeal by the Government for improved service on the waterfront and a conference with the employers which was hailed by the Minister as highly successful, was a more direct challenge to the Government’s authority than any of the disputes which preceded it. The unanimous decision to resume normal working which the watersiders made after hearing Mr Webb and Mr Fraser, is encouraging. But only time will tell whether the Government has yet made its attitude sufficiently plain to end, once and for all, such costly interruptions of trade as that which was caused in Wellington during the last few days.