Blatant Somersaull

Chronicle (Levin), 31 December 1946, Page 4

Blatant Somersaull

-Press Association

WATERSIDERS' LEADER TELLS DIFFERENT STORY

By Telegraph-

AUCKLAND, Dec. 30. A storm over the waterfront dispute broke in Auckland today. Keplying to the letter by tlie National executive of the New Zealand Federation of Labour to the Waterside Workers' Union in which the opinion is expressed that it would be folly to rcject the opportunities availab'le for acliieving a settlement oi' the dispute, tiro national president of the Waterside Workers' Union ( Af j*. 11. Barnes)- accuses the National Executive oi' the Federation oi' Labour of "a blatant somer sault. " "-The- president of the Auckland Trades Council (Mr. A. Drennan) nlleges that the National Execu tive of the Federation oi' Labour has usurped the constitutionaj powers oi' the National Council and Conference of the Federation, "when it thus expresses itself puhlicly. " Alr. Barnes states: "The natural reaetion of anyonc reading Ihe sLitrment issued by the National Executive of the Federation oi" Labour would be a belief that the Waterside Workers' Union ha.l iianded the dispute over to the Federation of Labour. This is not so. in view of the statement now publishcd by the Federation scerctary, it is neccssary to give the truc facts of what has happened in diseussions between the Nation al Executive of tlic Waterside. Workers' Union and National Exec'tltives of thq- Federation of Labour. . The tirst thing is ,toeni])hasise again that we did not, and indeed have not since, handed the dispute over to the Federation of Labour, but at the request of the National Executive of the Federation of Labour, the National Executive of the Waterside Workers' Union agreed to discuss the whole dispute with them on the 7th and 18th of this month. Our case and grievances were outlined in full. Members of the Federation of Labour executive were astounded when the full facts were plnced before them and fmally they agreed to a joint meeting witli the Prime Minister, Cal)inet members and us, the following day, in order to present a joint forrnula for settlement of dispute. That form. iila which was unanimously agreed upon by both the executive of Ihe Federation of Labour and Nation, al Executive of the Waterside Workers' Union, was that- the price of the return to normal work on the waterfront in New Zealand was satisfaetion of the Watcrsiders ' gri evances, ' ' After descrjbing further dis. cussions, Mr. Barnes said it was igreed that the watersiders should be offered a guarantee similar to that offered to- railway workers in January last year. rhat guarantee, said Mr. Barnes, was that failing a satisfactory de- ; sision by the tribunal sitting to jonsider the particulnr grievances, i oy February 14, 1945, any action ; wbicb the railway workers then ' iecided to take would have the i iuII support and backing of the i federation of Labour, Mr, Barnes i

added that the National Executive of the Federation of Labour agreed to the same poliey in the waterfront dispute, that was, if the watersiders' grievances were not satisfied by January 14, 1947, which was the date for a meeting of the national council of the Watersiders' Union. Then any action which the Watersiders' Union decided to take would have the full support of the Federation of Labour. "We advised the National Executive of the Federation of Labour that upon receipt of a memor•indiim to that cffeet we would advisc members of our union to resume normal work," iMr. Barnes continued. "The national execu live members of the Federation of Labour stated that, in view of the justiee of our demands our attitude was rnost fair and they were pleased with the outeome of the diseussions. "It can be seen from this factnal acconnt of what happened, that the letter from the Federation of Labour which was sent to our union without further discussion represents a complete somersault on the part of the National Executive of the Federation. "l.havo been relnetant indeed 1o make this eomment but it is essential that the truth be presented to the people of New Zealand. I am of opinion that the National Executive of the Federation of Labour before speaking- on behalf of the trade union movement oi New Zealand, should have ealled together the national council of the Federation, to explain its blatant somersault. " Mr. Drennan Agrees. MU ' Dremjap sai d : " Th e . N a--fionaf Executive of the Federation of Labour has, in my opinion, acted precipitately in publishing the' statement that it d'oes not agree with the poliey of the Waterside Workers' Union in restricting hours of work to enforce the claims of the union. Jt is a statement which can only inspire disunity and coufusion among trade unionists and act detrimcntally to the best interests of trade unionism, it is my opinion that the national executive of the Federation has usurped the constitutional powers of the National Council and Conference of the Federation when it thus expresses itself publicly. The decision to invite diseussions with the Waterside Workers' Union was a decision of the national council, the matter of poliey being one for the national council and .not the national executive. All the more. is this so when that decision implies an attack on the poliey of an important affiliation such as the Waterside Workers' Union. " , Mr. Drennan added that the Watersiders' Union had not violafed any constitutional right oban affiliated union. Henee, when the national executive of the Federation made public a poliey of disn greemont with the union, it was intimating to the afllliations of the Federation of Labour to adopt a similar eourse. Mr. Drennan said that after diseussions between the Groveramenf, Federation of Labour and union last week, the Auckland Trades Council executive recolvcd to call for the national council to meet and take action in the situItion.