THE "LOCO." MEN AND THE MINISTER

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 107, 30 January 1919, Page 6

THE "LOCO." MEN AND THE MINISTER

.Sir,—ln your issue of January IS you published a leiUμ , from the Minister of Railways and which was a copy of a loiter sent to the K.'A. Locomotive Engineers, Firemen, and CUv.w.crs' Association, and directly underneath this letter you published some caustic remarks about my changed altitude as secretary of the above organisation, and immediately hennath these caustic remarks you had an excerpt from my evidence given before the Railways Committee in tin , year 1!HI9, and which excerpt was evidently placed in the hands of the Minister by someone in a similar position to myself in another organisation. In inv statement before the Railways

Committee in 1909 I showed where amalgamated unions, or in other words the 0.8. E. Union, were not a success in their strike tactics, and I still Bay so, and history will prove my statement correct. Where is my changed attitude on thie statement? ' I also stated that strikes were altogellier out of the question, and I still say so. The matter of strikes had nothing to do with tlie recognition of the "loco." men's union, and the question of a strike did not enter into the minds of those who were- appearing for the "loco." men's union. Where, then, is ray changed attitude? . 1 sav (his—and slill adhere to it—thnt the only purpose for an amalgamation is either for a strike or to control votes. Will the Minister or his confederate state publicly what is the frenzied effort to get all in tlio one union if it is not for either? I further made the statement before the committee that I would never make use of a strike us a weapon to lie used against, the Government. At that time there was a Government in power, but to-day Ihere is- not—merely an npolo'v. However, the Minister and his confederate should wait and see whether I will carry this out before publishing such Taushc remarks. T call upon either of them to prove that I have c)>an<recl in any respect, and particularly where I have used the strike weapon against the Government. When I do, then he is welcome to , nublish all ho wishes-in this respert. It is poor compensation for one to have such caustic remarks published publicly under the letter from the Minister of Railways when I have been dninc: my best to'prevent a strike amongst the locomotive men in New Zealand.

My organisation does not favour strikes, and in pi«of t'>ev have asked to come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and have petitioned Parliament and ent a favourable recommendation, but the Government did nothing. We have appealed for a Conciliation Commissioner to adjudicate, but the Government ignored the request.

Can you say Hint- my union or.rovself are direct actinni'ts after all we have done lately townrd* setting our claims even seriously considered ? -We have tipHHotipil Parliament for the third time. hut it is useless, and if our members have become militant it .is not because their union was recognised on what the general secretary said when putting up his case, but because they have beon turned down badly on every request for a means of amicable settlement.

There i* one thine you can he assured ofi Mr. Editor, thot irrespective of my Temnrlw before the Railways Committee, I will carry out. any instructions eiven to dip by a majority vote of (ho membei'R of this association, and do their bidding well.—l am, etc.. ■\V. M'ARLEY, General secretory, N.Z. Ijoeomntivo Knpineers, Firemen,

and Cleaners' Association,