WELFARE LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 114, 7 February 1920, Page 7

WELFARE LEAGUE

COAL DISPUTE DEADLOCK

ARE BOTH SIDES IN THE

WRONG ?

"SUGGESTION TOWARDS-RAPPROACHE-MENT (Contributed .by the N.Z. Welfare League.) The outstanding difficulty of the present coal dispute arise.; from the soominc desire on both sides to prove- their case bv showing the other .side as being in the wrong, and' forgetting that both may be partly in the \vroug. Jt is vain to exDect that, whilst the parties stand oft' from each other and rely upon tellinir the public-what the position is, based on the higher rates in the one instance, and on. the lower rates in the other, that any mutual understanding can ba arrived at. The Differences Between Them. Both sides say thev are willing to confer "if";—and there they stand. Can we now tret over that "if"? Let us eco what each side say they aro prepared to a'<!ree to. The Minors'' Federation says:— (1) Tho dispute is now in the hands of the Alliance of Labour, and it asks that the alliance control be recognised. .(2) It requests that the conference shall ho on a'national basis, as covering tho whole coal industry of the Dominion. The Aline Owners' Association says:— (i) It is prepared to negotiate with tho Miners' Federation to arrange for 'Conferences with the local unions, but takes no exception to a representative of the Miners' Federation's executive attending and actins as a delegate.

(2) It definitely declines to recognise anv outsido hotly as one with which negotiations 'should bo carried. Briefly put, if. will not confer with the Labour Alliance.

Comments on the Differences. In calmlv reviewing the requests of listh sides, as hero presented, the extent of difference between them docs not seem in lie insurmountable. It is true that there are principles for .which each side is contending, but an "unbiased individual would coon discern that there is more appearance of value than reality about the principles fought for. If, for instance, the Miners' Federation agreed to local conferences, these would still be virtually a Federation conference, for tho reason that the Federation is behind each local union. Jvet us suppose the Mine Owners' Association agree to a national conference with the Miners' Federation, tho local condition of tho various mines would still have lo bo fully considered, and tho Federation would have to decend on tho representations of tho local unions.

Suqnestions Towards Better Understanding. ■ Having read tho most recent statement of tho Mine Owners' Association, wo havo to sav that it appears to bring ns no nearer a conclusion. Tho Mine Owners' Association says: "The miners' earnings were.oil an average approximately of 225. per day." On the other hand the Miners' Federation says: "It is 15s. per day." Of these attempts to convince tho public, though quite justifiable, thero is really no end. ....

The league desires to mako the following suggestion as a moans towanjs bringing tho parties together. At present tho Miners' Federation wants alliance control and a national conference; the Mino Owners' Association wants no alliance control and local conferences. ' In the interests of the public and to exoedite matters, the league would urge that enejj side forego'onc request. Let the Miners' Federation forego the matter of alliance control and the Mine Owners' Association forego the matter of local confer, ences, and there is no reason wliy the parties might not meet and confer within a week's time.

' To the minors the league, wishes to say: "After all you have to recognise that the miners' unions or' federations are the proper bodies to deal with miners' disputes. The Seamen's Federation, the Watersiders', Drivers. A.S.R.S.. and other federations deal direct with their, own disputes and conferences arising out of same. Why not. the miners? The Labour Alliance was formed''as an advisory body of the Labour movement. Let the alliance advise, but surely it is right that the executive function of direct negotiation and conference should be exercised in respect to mining; affairs by. your Miners' Federation. We believe the Labour Alliance Council will recognise the soundness of this contention. To tho mine owners tho league desires'to say that it can see no sound reason why their association should not at present .forego the proposal for local conferences. It is well known that tho coal question has'come to be recognised as a matter 'for national discussion in other coirofc'ica to-day. Whilst it is true that there are differences of local conditions in respect to the mines which must affect any agreements arrived at, there are questions surely of a general character that affect the working and employment of all mines.

In the public interest we urge'you to agree at once to the holding of a national conference with representatives of the Miners' Federation. If such a conference is called,and it is shown that the local- conditions vary greatly, then surely the common 'sense of practical men' will find tho need of obtaining local evidence or holding' subsidiary conferences. To both of the parties in this .important dispute the league, very respectfully, but with the firm conviction that it is only doing its duty, .urges strongly that thero should bo no further delay in the matter of coming. together and making afl honest effort at settlement. -If you have rubbed each other the wrong way on previous occasions make a desperate effortUo forget. The league appeals to you both to make this trial, not so much for tho sake of business or, for us grown-up men, but there .are our women and children, and particularly the sick, the aged and infirm. To these the supply of coal means very much, 'iiien there is our country, which'we liavo to live in whatever economic views we hold. For these very substantial reasons let us play the part of serious-minded men and try to settle this trying coal dispute. A copy of this article has been forwarded to the Mine Owners' Association and to tho Miners' Federation with a covering letter.