INDUSTRIAL ACT INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 123, 22 February 1928, Page 14

INDUSTRIAL ACT INQUIRY

REPRESENTATION QUESTION FARMERS’ UNION PROTEST A letter has been sent by Mr. W. J. I'ulsou, president of ilie New Zealand Farmers’ Union, to all provincial presidents of the uuiuu:—“Uu behalf of the committee set up to deal with the proposed conference to be held in \\ ellington to discuss the I.C. and A. Act. This conference, at which the Uiiin-j Minister will preside, will consist of 25 representatives of Labour aud 25 representatives of employers, iu addition to tho L’arliainentary Committee and a number of Departmental officials. ''it is felt by your committee,” writes Mr. Polson, ''that the proposed representation is so grotesque .aid unfair that a pretest not only by the central executive but by every province should be made at once. In the first place Labour unions of all descriptions are given full and adequate representation at the conference as follows:— “Employees’ Hepresenlalion. Iwentjfive membets, to be divided amongst the following: Alliance of Labour, Trades and Labour Councils, Hural Workers, Unregistered and Unaflihated Uuions. “It will be noticed that even ruLtl workers are to have representation, lhe New Zealand Farmers’ Union represents the "feat bulk of the farmers of New Zealand. Lt is the only the dairy farmer except a.llaH'y provincial organisation m ManaAatu, which is working in compete H aimony with the Farmers’ Union, Jet this union is not asked to send one dairy fanne delegate. On the contrary, the National Dairy Association, now a trading organisation, together with the South Is an< Dairy Association, is handed tho .tgl t appointing the whole delegation Such an organisation should its delegation in conjunction with Hie tv.rers’ Association, whom it most clo. ly resembles, and not displace the >onafide organisation of the < anj But the position in regaru to sheep fanners’ representation is even f an in ’■e.-ard to dairy farmers, lhe Farmed’ Union, representing iibly ten times the number of sheep owiiers represeiited b -V iin Y , ° j* * organisation in New Zealand, “et-'ded at the last Dominion toiHerence that it is a waste of time to ask foi Hie ’ibolition of the I.C. and A. Act because of the powerful in favour of its retention, and that the best method is to seek its drastic amendment. It will hstonish mem hers to learn that no representation is given Jo the union for its, sheep-owner meinbers, but that five delegates are allowed the Sheep Owners .federation, which, though favouring the abolition of the Act, is opposed to the policy ol the union. This union not «°e s "?■ represented, but full representation s allowed a body winch is Lotion policy. There can bo no justification for such an action as this. “The Farmers’ Union, indeed, has been given no official status at a’l at the coming conference, althou o li full status is given to even unregistered ana unaffiliated unions on the Laboui; side. It has however, been allowed to nominate the delegates for “agricultural farmers’’ (wheat growers, etc.). It ceitainlv does represent the wheat growers, but tho bulk of its members are sheep and dairy farmers, and if it is logical to give it representation on behalt ot wheat growers it is equally logical to provide similar representation for the dairy farmers and sheep farmers who are members of this union, and wr. ■> constitute close on 20,000 of its active members. , ~. , ... “It is, of course, doubtful whether such a conference as is proposed will be of anv great value. Your committee feels that a commission ot qualihea men would give far better results, bu. whatever value the conference may have will be largely destroyed it th representation is so grossly uljtair as that laid down in the official circular. It is probably impossible to obtain any amendment of the representation now, hut a very united protest should ba made by all provinces to the committee and to‘the Prime Minister regarding ihe unfair allocation of farming reptesentatives for the National Industrial (’on ferpnee.” ,