THE HUNTLY TROUBLE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1924, 5 December 1913, Page 9

THE HUNTLY TROUBLE.

POSITION OF EMPLOYERS.

DIRECTORS' STATEMENT.

HISTORY OP THE DISPUTE.

No settlement of tho dispute at lluntly has yet been arrived at (says the Auckland "Herald"), and tho Taupiri Coal Mines Company has received ollicial intimation from tho Huntly Miners' Union that at a meeting of tho union it was unanimously resolved that, as tho trouble was in the hands of the United Federation of Labour, fill communications respecting the strike, must bo made through the Federation. Asked as to what action the directors of the company proposed to take in view of this information, the chairman of directors, Mr. E. W. Alison, stated that tho question was receiving consideration. It had been generally assumed that the union at Huntly was an arbitration organisation. Speaking in regard to this aspect of tho trouble, Mr. Alison said tho union's letter to tho company showed that it was dominated by tho United Federation of Labour. Had it not been so thero would have been no troublo at all at Huntly. Tho Enginedrivers' Union, which was a separate union under the Arbitration Act, controlled by Arbitrationists, was in nu way allied to tho Federation of Labour, and did not strike. Tho members of this union had remained loyal to tho company, and there had not been any dispute or troublo of any kind with that union since the agreement between it and tho company was entered into. The following statement has been issued by tho directors of tho company in regard to tho matter:—"So much misapprehension seems to exist in the minds of the public in regard to the relation of this company to tho strike that it may bo advisable, to make a plain statement, which, they hope, will make the position clear. Tho trouble that aroso at Huntly last year, as a result of which the company discharged tho executive of ■ the union, is well Juiown, so also is the fact that a new union under the Arbitration Act was formed and registered, and that an industrial agreement was entered into between the company, and _ this new union. In that agreement it is provided that 'a fortnight's notice in writing shall bo given before a worker is discharged, and vice versa." Neither the agreement, nor the Arbitration Act, nor the common law of this Dominion requires that any reason shall be given provided the worker receives the proper notice. An employer has always had, and it is, essential to the conduct of his business that he shall retain, the right to employ or cease to employ workers as the exigencies of his business require, just as the worker lias always had, and is' entitled to retain., the right to work or not to work for any employer; as and when he thinks proper, subject in both cases to the terms of the engagement they may have entered into and of course to any provisions of tho law. Workers in the company's mines at Huntly do not hesitate to leave, their work as and when it pleases them, without giving any reason.

Provisions in tho Act. "Now under tho Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, there is an exception to this rule, which affects the employer only. Section 60 provides: 'Every employer who dismisses from his employment any worker by reason merely of t-lio fact that the worker is an .officer, or a member of "ah industrial union, or merely .because such 'worker has acted as an assessor on a council of conciliation or has represented his union in any negotiations or conference between employers and workers, or merely becauso such worker is entitled to the benefit of an award, order, or agreement, is liable to a penalty not exceeding £2(3, to bo recovered at the suit of an inspector of awards in the same manner as a penalty for the breach of an award. A worker shall bo deemed to be dismissed within tho meaning of this section if he is suspended for a longer period than 10 days. In every case where the worker dismissed was immediately preceding his dis-. missal a president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer of an industrial union, or an assessor for a council. of conciliation, or represented his union in any negotiations or conference between employers and workers, it shall lie, on tho employer to prove that such worker was dismissed for a reason other than that he had acted in any of tho said capacities.' So that, unless the company can bo shown to have committed a breach of this section, it was perfectly justified in discharging any of its workers on giving tho necessary notice and without assigning any reason. This is the provision tho Legislature • liasmade to protect workers who 'display an active interest in trades union matters.' No Attempt to Prosecute. "If tflio company has deliberately picked out men for dismissal becauso of the active interest they displayed in trades union matters why has no attempt been made to prosccuto tho company ?" continues the statement. "By a very simple and inexpensive process tho wholo of the facts could have been elicited and the grievances, if any, of the discharged men fully ventilated. It h significant that no such suggestion has been made by the union. Tho only inference that can bo drawn is that the company has not committed any breach of the Act. Nor has it ever been suggested that it has committed any breach of the agreement. "Then tho question arises: What is the cause of complaint against the company ? The only cause of complaint that remains then is that the company has exercised its undeniable and legitimate right of discharging workers, and in doing so giving due notice, but giving no' reason.

"lieasons in plenty have been invented and circulated, but no attempt has been made to justify the statements made, although tho law provides a plain, simple way. No Quarrel with Unionism. "Tho company has no quarrel with unionism, no sane employer can have. The company hail no quarrel with tho Miners' Union at Huutly, nor would have so long as the terms of the agreement were observed. The union has asserted that the directors have pursued a. policy of '»m-prieking_' or 'irritations.' This assertion the directors unhesitatingly deny. The directors have, however, contended, and do still con.to.nd, for the right to manage their own business—a right which the union seeks to take away, substituting a ballot ■under union supervision to determine which men in the company's employ shall be discharged. Union Statements ChalCnssil. "In a manifesto put forward by the union the statement is made that "no reason was given for the action of tho company in giving tho discharged men notice.' The company was under no obligation to give a reason. It is not necessary to give any reason for dispensing with the services of a worker, and all that has been said on this point is beside the question. Then they refer to the explanation that was subsequently made. —that tho men wore discharged because, orders had fallen oil', and m> many men were not required. The accuracy of this explanation is challenged, and Various statements are made to show- that it is not true., Will the officials of the union then explain why on August IS—nearly two months before. t-lieT men. were given notice-—the uiiion

wrote to til* compaiiv tl»> I'ollowinletter:—'At the. last meeting it was iiiiuiiiiiiously carried that in tho event ot the mines making short time, tho members of this 'union ei|tuil!v divide between its members lh;. work the management, may require, and :i copv lie sent to the directors'? Unes not "this letter plainly show that they anticipated a shortening of work, exactly what happened and always happens" as the warm weather approaches:' "On October 15, when this matter was actually under discussion between the. company and the union, the union in a- letter to the company wrote:—'The members are quite, wiiiing to take a ballot when trade requires shortening of hands,' etc., again recognising that the exigencies of the company's business do necessitate shortening of hands as the. company has stated. Tim facts referred to, together with the fact that no attempt has been made to prosccuto the company, and the clear admissions made ill these two letters of the union, should be sufficient to convince any fair-mind-ed person that the company's action in the beginning and throughout was legitimate and justifiable, and that the reason given was a genuine one.

''Persistent Misrepresentation."

"Again, they ask 'what reason tho directors can givo for starting 14 new employees within a few days of tho notices being served?' flow/upon this question thero has been gross and persistent misrepresentation. What are the facts? JSot one worker has been, engaged by the company since October 6, the date on which the 16' dismissed miiiers received their notices. Two new workers did start work on October G, tho day the notices were seived out— but under what circumstances? Tho two workers so started wcro two youths who, having been engaged some four months previously, had just arrived from JUnglancl, their father (an employee of the company) having made, the arrangement before he sent for them to join him. One of these youths was engaged as a rope-boy, the other as a trucker. Then let us tako tho. employment of workers prior to October C. Wo must go back to September 29 (eight days before the notices wero given, remember!), when four men nero taken on.

"In order to make up tho 1-1 new employees referred to by the union, it is necessary to go back further still to September 10. The following tablo shows tho number of men engaged by the company from September 16" to September 29, after which date no worker, was engaged, tho two youths referred to being promised employment months boforo they started: —

> Aien Sept. 20 (eight days prior to notice) 4 Sept, 23 (14 days prior to notice) ... 3 Sept. 22 (15 clays prior to notice) ... .2 Sept. 1G (20 days prior to notice) ... 4 Sept. 15 (21 days prior to notice) ... 2

"Of .these 12 were truckers, fine a shiftman', and two only were miners. Of these two miners one had come up from tho West Coast, having some time previously arranged for his job, whilst tho other was amongst tho 1G discharged. Tho truckers wero needed to rcplaeo men who had left of their own accord. Tho shiftman was a man who had been away for a month's holiday and had returned.

"It should bo borno in mind that men are continually leaving and others being taken on, so that tho fact that theso 15 men wore taken on in September does not menu that tho actual number of men working was increased by 15. As a matter of fact tho total number employed during tha month of September was exactly, the same as for tho month of August. It is a common experience.'in nil. concerns where a largo number of men is employed, and particularly in coal mines, that numbers como and go.

" Unsatisfactory Machines. "Again, it is stated that 'on tho morning these men received notice about n dozen truckers were taken from tho roads and put to the coal face.' This statement is absolutely incorrect, and theso aro tho facts. For some timo past the company had in operation in thcExtended mino four coal cutting machines, and some 15 men wero employed in connection with these machines. These machines are not altogether satistaclory, they make too much small coal, and as tho output of slack was gotting.too big it was decided to meantime discontinue them. In consequence, tho men employed on them wero notified that other work would bo found for them. This intimation was given a fortnight prior to October 6. Seven of theso men (who had previously been fillers at the machines, not truckers) wero put on the coal simply taking the place of the discarded machines, seven were put to trucking and shiftwork, and one was transferred to Ralph's mine. The other statements in the union's manifesto have been answered several times, and it is not therefore nc:cssary hero to repeat the company's explanations "Another statement must bo referred to which is not in the manifesto, but has been freely circulated, viz: That tho company has picked out and discharged men who havo bought sections of land from the company, and has then proceeded to forfeit their sections, retaining the purchase money already paid. It. surely need hardly be said that this is contrary to fact, for not one of the discharged" men had purchased a section from the company. Tho charge of victimisation has been made against tho company. The charge is a vaguo one, easy to make, and in tho present state of feeling readily believed. It has been reiterated on every possible occasion, but tho fact remains that no atI tempt whatever has been made to substantiate tho charge.

"All the company asks is that tho statement of facts set out above—each of which can bo easily verified—shall bo considered calmly and dispassionately, and if this is done it has no fear of the verdict.

"Union Flouts tho Lavx" ''But while tho company has thus stated.its own position, what is to ho said as to tho action and attitude of tho union ? Surely this should not escape attention'? Begistercd under tho Arbitration Act, bound by an industrial agreement, which was entered into voluntarily and deliberately, after .days of consideration, it has (touted the law and broken and repudiated its own agreement. And yet tho union strives to east tho blamo for tho striko on tho company. Had the men been really victimised there was a, constitutional method of dealing with the company. Had a magistrate found the company guilty' it could not have resisted tho pressure of public opinion, Imt must have reinstated the' discharged men. Surely that was protection, safeguard enough for tho union. But, unfortunately for themselves and for the whole Dominion, the union had delivered themselves into tho hands of tho United Federation of Labour, and its officials had evidently become imbued with the spirit a.ul methods of that organisation, and such has been its malign inlluenco that decent, honest, hardworking men havo been led to disregard their own agreement and to precipitate a trouble which has lost them many weeks of work and wages, and been seriously detrimental to tlu> welfare of ihe whole community.

Employers Demand Security. "The union in its agreement hound itself to take a-'secret ballot and to give certain notices before- resorting to a strike, —most necessary and reasonable provisions—hut the union has disicgarded these provisions, it has cared for none of these things. Is it, any wonder that employers and farmers alike have joined to light these methods and their originator, tho Federation of Labour? Is it any wonder Hint- employers and Herman alil>>' are insistimj on same means being devised that shall

give some measure nf security, that, shall produce some sanction '.iuit will bind workers as well as employer.-? ll' thi> men of llir.illy hiiil returned in their work, prepared In keep the tiTins o! their .agreement, they wonid Si.uv foinid I lie company, as it always has l.icon, just iint! leiiieul. Had they put aside the auarchieal methods ami tactics of the e'edcration and the I.W.W. they would have Jound industrial peace and l'aii- dealing, which would have ensured, as the other means cannot, that for which they' all so earnestly contend— industrial solidarity. It is a matter for extreme regret that one rinds the union still persisting in their adherence to the United Federation of Labour, whose methods and tr.cties have -caused so much loss and injury to the people of New Zealand, and which have deservedly been condemned l from one end of the Dominion to the oilier."