EMPLOYERR AND UNION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 16892, 7 February 1917, Page 4

EMPLOYERR AND UNION.

The -following correspondence h.s From, the Secretar/of tfc e Wanganui Employers' Association 'to Seomu/v oi- the Union:— . •*

"I am instructed by my executive to ask you ior an explanation as to -v}. v 1- 8 of y?'ur Un;°n faiie^ -*o assemble this morning (Fearuary 3) at the usual time for. the engagement or labour. lam given to unde «tand flue a meeting of members of - V ur Vaiou wa s held, but no nbt:n?at'M had IW-n ie;eived by our representative that jour members would not be in attendance to accept engagement.

AJso as regards ;,ouir official notifi-cation-not to aceepf engagement for \rork between the1 hours of 5 p.m. and a a.m., such being a distinct brea-h of We existing agreement." The following is an official reply by the Union, to the above letter/;-— ".Regarding our request for explanations re the men not assembling on Saturday morning at the appointed i-:me,_l am directed ti state the notice convening the meeting was given on a count of our having no knowled-e t»mt anything in the share of sbiorinV wafi exoeeted (on SatnrJav morning aocordinsc to the Post Office X hoard at the time the notice was oosted. Accordm-r to custom, the meeting was proceeded'with on the order of the executive. It wa*'thought R t the time that the meet'ng would not last lonoenough to seriously interfere triibh shipping that had arrived. However, ive are sorry the unexpected hap-ened! "Re?arding; v O) ,r se-ond question relatmp; to our decision of <msin<? work it 5 t>.m.. that was arrive! at V<- tli« nrilv le^nl method we are p«-qiiaiiiW' cit.b. If vo-t c-nsidei- hv so we nave committed a breir-h of. tbe'a-gree-Tienfc, ond as you state the old a°re*ment holds pood till a new one is drawn u», why have you not' resorted to 'lause 17 of the agreement which de^ls with settlement of disputes? When perhaps ,an amicable understanding might have been arrived at. If we can] l)« shown where we have committed a breach of the agreement we are quite willing for same to be rectified in the proper* ihannd—the disputes committee. AYe would like to draw your attention to reports handed in irom the" Citizens' Defence Committee, and beg the liberty to ask who and of whom c!o;s the Citizens' D?fence Committee consists of? Who is Mr G. Caiman, its president? We don't know him from the proverbial "bar of soap" as being

a.party to theaereeruent, nor yet har# AVo my linowleie.of hitn Lein^^in tiny way interested an shipping in WaHanu! As for other sta-ioments contained in the Citizens' Defence Committee's r.poit that, labour'" had Lee.i given fo\ir ohan.ej to work—t*ice on Saturday and twi:c on Monday—we nbsohttely repudiate that statement. On .St rday at midday ue offered ourselves lor work. We wore rejecteji On Monday we ljiel up again at 8 a.m., ond wepa again rejected. Please let us know what other tmjp we we.© asked end refused,. and obliaeJ. PHiLIPSON, S© lefcary The' following lfctter' jv'as "sent'"by th* JSmployers' Association to Mr. J, Philipson, •'secretary of the Waterside Workers' Union: In reply to you; letter of even date, 1 might inform yoi that the Citizens' Defence Committee i composed of all merchants and peopli who are interested in cargo, which yot people are sticking tip.; Mv Cabman was "appointed- -chairman at'.-.the:<meQting,-and is a large importer, as you wellknow. Your answer to my-first ques,tion y^ill a ,npt hold wat 3r } and as to your answer to my second, it is useless considering clause 17. You, as one of the executive, resolved that you would not liave anythingvfcia do with: the Arbitration -Court, so..any reference to cla-itsa 17' is out of t'Jie question '.--under the circuihstances. Employers will no! tolerate your action any longer,— Arthur Weekes,. secretary.