Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BAKERS’ DRIVERS DISPUTE

Minister’s View Of

Men’s Action

INCIDENT REVIEWED IN

THE HOUSE

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON. September 15. ‘‘For every breach of industrial law by workers in New Zealand, there are 50 or 60 broaches by employers,” said the Minister for Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong), during discussion in the House of Representatives to-night on a bakery dispute, which tqok place some time ago in Auckland. The Minister said that if any “gangster business" were carried on by workers anywhere, it would be put down with ’ a very firm hand by the Government. The subject was raised during consideration of the Supplementary Estimates by Mr S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North), who pointed to an item of £33 for “travelling expenses, etc., of the tribunal to investigate the cessation of employment by oakei’s’ drivers in Auckland.” Mr Holland said a strike had occurred;, but it was referred to in the estimates as “cessation of employment.” “The Minister for Labour made an inquiry into the dispute; but was unsuccessful,” Mr Holland said. “He then sent a tribunal which later delivered itself of a 12-page judgment, and found the employer quite within his rights in dismissing one of his drivers. There has been no prosecution of the union for that strike. Since that time, the employer has had reason to discharge another employee, so the union has placed a boycott on him.” , The Minister for Education (the Hon. P. Fraser): Do you know what 'the Minister said?

Mr Holland: I know he expressed disapproval; but he did nothing. “They put a boycott on an Auckland hotel because it bought bread from that baker,” Mr Holland said.' “I hope the Minister will know in future not to interfere with the Courts of law, because it brings on this sort of thing. I think it is time public attention was brought to the fact that the union is going to use all the. forces of compulsory unionism to intimidate employers.”

Minister’s Reply

“I know that. incident, and I have investigated it,” said Mr Armstrong. “The Federation of Labour denies all knowledge- of it. The circular suggesting that the bread of one firm should not be purchased was issued by the secretary of an organisation in Auckland; but I never heard of anyone being boycotted because he bought that man’s bread. I hardly think any sensible section of the community, whether trade unionists or anyone else, would be influenced by propaganda of that kind, and if any persons are influenced, they are not serving the interests‘ of the Labour movement, or any other movement. - “If the Minister happened to be a member, of the National Party, he would not- come down more heavily than, I have done,” Mr . Armstrong continued. . “If the gangster business is carried on in Auckland in the way that has been suggested, it will be put down with a firm hand by this Government.”

The why Mr Holland should bring in the question of interference with the Arbitration Court in a case of that kind. The driver had been dismissed, allegedly because he was trying !,to improve the condition of his fellow-workers,, and, the Arbi r tration Court had* ho jurisdiction' to deal'iw'ithV; a case like that; ■ : ■ “There was a hold-up ot that business, and alter I had made an. inquiry in Auckland, I was perfectly satisfied," Mr Armstrong said, “that on the evidence of the men themselves no tribunal would upheld them. I suggested a- tribunal,-however, and we placed oh it two'former officers of the Labour Department, .and a, magistrate; The tribunal -gave a decision" against mh'haem- and 'li-ain satisfied that there. Could I 'have been' rio; 'other decision. ’ f ’ Boycotts ’ condemned , -

: The Minister-said he had no, patience with irresponsible: people :on' a'! policy;.:.©! boycott, . because. that was -nothing'short 62 blackmail, which be,. re.garded ’as "‘6n6'of “’the -.Worst ,pf Crimes,-V! That was what'he had. said td'themep. i ;; The only person'who had :£ighV-’•prosecute fpri,alleged bqypott; • however/' was, -the pdfsohV alleged to-be the-victim,- and it; Woul- be show that -his business? had-, suffered. | “ft Is -wrong’fdr.any workers-to take up-ithgt «ttitud<!,’ r Mr * Armstrong -said; Vbut*’ : What *'ab6ut<» ‘boycottrioin -.’the: pthßrj'sldeb that'.is., practised v by unscrupulous. employers;, and-has -been prpQtlsO&qSifar back as J ean, remem-'. berP -There. are 50 or 80. breaches of industrial-.law. by employers' in this country foi* 'every - breaclr : by employees; but thef'e.’js- riot - one word of protest’ abbut that: >v. -For all that,' I do pot uphold; the men, 'or; Jaw-breakers of.any; kind?*' ’ . . < . t .Mr Holland:: Was. it an. illegal strike? [ The Mirtiater/said.that,. .with .regard to boycotts, bf eachesdf the 'law. ,"and the defying of arbitration law, he was putting it down at a low estimate when he said that the proportion of breaches by employers : compared with employees was 50 or: 60 to one. Mr H.. G. Dickie (National, Patea): Have you “ taken any action against these men for striking? r “As a matter qf fact,” the Minister replied, “I can ’quote ’ 4000 of 5000 breaches of the law by employers in the last year or. so. "They have not been ..prosecuted'either, because their offences have- been v so numerous that we wquld have had to add materially .to the number' r of magistrates and judges on the Behch to deal with them. It is only, when-,disputes are not settled that action, has been. Jaken, and when an employer has. refused to meet his liability, with regafd to employees, that he has been prosecuted.”

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19380916.2.68

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22508, 16 September 1938, Page 12

Word count
Tapeke kupu
909

BAKERS’ DRIVERS DISPUTE Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22508, 16 September 1938, Page 12

BAKERS’ DRIVERS DISPUTE Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22508, 16 September 1938, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert