REPLY BY THE UNION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2995, 5 February 1917, Page 6

REPLY BY THE UNION

TO DEFENCE COMMITTEE'S LETTER. The following reply lias been sent by the secretary of ' the Waterside Workers' Union to the Employers, Farmers' and Defenco Committee's communication, published on Saturday: Mr. William Pryor, Secretary, . Wellington Employers, Farmers, ana Citizens' Defence Committee. . Dear sir,-rYonrs of February 2 to hand, and contents noted. In reply to your lengthy letter, 1 would /bo pleased if you would answer the following questions, which are required to explainthe'existenco of, and their interference in the matter of our union's doings:— When was the committee you are secretary of formed? Is it a registered 1 committee, or has it any connection with tlio Arbitration Court? . Has your committee any legal stanu"Who formed the committee, and for what purpose was it called into existence? Has your committee been made a party to" the industrial agreement under which the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union has been working?' , Hare you any authority as secretary of the committee to write or act for the Wellington Harbour Board ?_ ■ I feel sure you will recognise the necessity for an answer to those questions, to put your communication in order. Your bald statement "that the dispute between the N.Z. Waterside Workers' Federation, your union, and the employers of waterside labour in Wellington, has been referred to the above committee" is very vague and unbusinesslike, and we have had no communications from either the employers of the N.Z. Waterside AVorkers' Federation that' they liavo given the matter into your committee's hands for settlement. . Seeing that you have given a copy of this letter to the Press . . . without giving me a chance to receive your letter, which arrived at 10 a.m. to-day, I am forced to reply to you ; and the Press in the same mannor as you did. Tho text of your letter emphasises the fact "that the agreement is in forco until superseded by a new one." That being tho case, how can your committee denl with the matter, seeing they are not pnrties to the industrial agreement? In your next paragraph you state: "1 am instructed to say that the refusal of the members of your union to dump cargo on one vessel has already caused delay in the discharge of that voßsel, and a consequent delay in her loading with produce for the Imperial authorities." In reply to this, allow me to stato that the result of the conference had not been placed before our members at the date "some of our members refused to dump," also under tho provisions of our agreement the matter j/iauld have been plaoed before the

local committee in a few hours had the company concerned made a dispute of it. Further, this ship (if delayed) was delayed by the company themselves; our men were quite willing to discharge the cargo by means of slings, and had tho employers complied with the agreement and called lie local committee together the matter might have been settled in a few hours.

Further, you state: "Your union has so far ignored the reminder given to you some days ago by the manager of the 'Wellington 'Waterside Employment Association, that any disputes arising, especially at tho present time, should 'he dealt with as provided for in the agreement." It is evident you are dealing with a matter you know nothing about, for these reasons:

(1) The local committee can he called together by either party, employers or employees, when they have a dispute. ('2) Please give date of «he reminder you refer to, i have not received it. (3) As the manager of the Wellington Waterside Employers' Co-operative Association (I presume this is the association you mean) is the convener of all local committee meetings, why did ho not call a meeting?

You next refer to hreaches of agreement, and can apparently only trump up four cases against our members.

, (1) Refusing to accept engagement for work at the hours specified in the agreement. The 'agreement does not make it mandatory for the union to supply men, but it does fix the hours in which the employers shall engage men. Therefore, seeing the men frequently attend and are not engaged, it must necessarily allow the men (they are casual men) the right not to a.ttend or to attend how and when they like.

(2) Restricting number of boxes of butter in any one hoist to 30, instead of 45, a-s is usual. The men have the right to refuse to jeopardise the lives of their fellow-workers by not overloading slings, and the boss has the right to sack them. We ask you and your committee wKether (under any clause of the agreement) the employers have the right to conspire together to black-list the men they have sacked and discharged from obtaining work elsewhere. In the case of the men not putting 45 boxes in a net, -what breach of the agreement did the men stowing the butter in the ship's hold commit? Yet they were discharged and blacklisted. 'Why! and what for? Trusting this reply vill satisfy you, and hoping to receive full particulars and status of the committee you represent, — Yours faithfully, . (Sgd.) J. 0. BROCK, Secretary.