THE HUNTLY MINERS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1923, 4 December 1913, Page 9

THE HUNTLY MINERS.

STATEMENT BY TAUriRI DIRECTOHS. (By Telegraph.—Prcs3 Association.) Auskland, December 3. In fine weather to-day work on tho (vharvos has been pushed forward rapidly. The most important movement was tho arrival of tho Ma'hcno, which was berthed at :ho Queen's Wharf, to land 400 passengers and a large Australian mail. The departure of the vessel on tho return passage has been postponed till 5 p.m. to-morrow. She will bo followed at tho wharf by the fihaw-Savill steamer Waiwcra, from London. An interesting position 'has arisen regarding the of members to iho new union. Last .night a meeting of the union whs held. Kivo men, farmers from Tiwraiijr.il, with high recommendations from a pnvninont citizen, applied or admission, but the voting was against admitting them. Two of tho men had been working on the Monowai, expecting to bo admitted without any trouble. They were very much disappointed. "Seeing that the farmers have been thrown out," remarked oho of tho members of tha new union, who does i.ot approve of tho attitude taken up by tho majority, "J am afraid that there is no chance at nil for Diio 200 old watcrsidcrs who have applied for work." This morning moro strikers applied at tho wharf for work. The namr'3 were taken, and they will be ballotcd for in duo course

The directors of tho Tiuipiri Orinl .Mines have- issued a statement in which tlicy say that if the company has_ deliberately picked out men for dismissal because of activo interest displayed in tr.ido union matters, why has no attempt been made to prosecute ' t'lio company. By a very simplo and inexpensive process, the whole of the facts could have been elicited, and tho grievances, if any, .-if tho disc'hirgcd men fully vontikited. It is significant that no such suggestion has been wade by tho union. The only iiiferrmcß that can bo drawn is'that tho company lias not committed any breach

of the Act, nor has it ever been suggested that-it has committed liny breach of agreement. What is the cause of complaint against tlio company? Tho only cause of complaint that remains, then, is that tho company has exorcised its undeniable- and legitimate right of discharging workers, and in doing so giving duo notice, but giving no reason. Reasons in plenty hnvo been invented and circulated, but no attempt has been mado to justify tho statements made. Tho company has no quarrel with unionism—no sauo employer can have. Tho company had no quarrel with tho Minors' Union at Huutly, nor would have so long as tho terms of agreement wero observed. Tho union has asserted that tho directors have pursued a policy of "pinpricking" or "irritations." This assertion, tho directors unhesitatingly deny. Tho directors have, however, contended, and do still contend, for tho right io manage their own business, a .right which the union seeks to tako away, substituting a ballot under union supervision to determine which men in tho company's employ shall ho discharged. The statement then deals in detail with t'ho allegations of victimisation.