UNION LETTER TO SOLDIER

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 199, 20 May 1944, Page 8

UNION LETTER TO SOLDIER

Labour Federation Reply ATTITUDE DEFENDED The secretary of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, Mr. F. Cornwell, staled yesterday that his iederation toun Si rung exception to the “one-sided an 1 misleading statement” appearing under the “U.S.A. Indignant'' heading in "The Dominion ’ on Mai 18. and copied trinii the “Review." official journal of rhe New Zealand Returned Services Association. The association, if the report was correct, had omitted to publish the full and true facts, said Mr. Cornwell. The position was that [lie New Zealand Dairy Factory Employees’ Union had to provide for a number of casual workers throughout every year who were not necessarily returned .servicemen. In order to do so on a fair basis,, it adopted the policy of accepting a year’s contribution, and if the member did not work the whole of the year, a refund was made for the period not worked. Mr. R. Sim. a soldier ou furlough from the Middle East, was ■ not on any occasion asked to pay the full season’s fees; he was asked to pay only for the period of bis employment. The general secretary of the U.S.A., in a letter to Mr. H. Phillips, president of the New Zealand Dairy Factories Union, stated that Mr. Sim had offered to pay the proportionate amount of the annual subscription. Mr. A. IJ. Laugslow, secretary of the Batea branch of the R.S.A., also stated that. Their information could only have been obtained from Mr. Sim, and it was evident that he recognized his obligation to pay that amount. As he had refused and was still refusing to do it, it was obvious that Mr Sim did not tell the R.S.A. the truth. That was what the federation called attention to in their letter to the R.S.A The federation did not impute any untruth on the part of the R.S.A. official. “It should be borne in mind,” said Mr. Cornwell, "that all that Mr. Sim had ever been asked to do was what he claimed he was willing to do, but the facts were that Mr. Sim refused to pay any part of the fee, nor did he write to the secretary and forward payment of the reduced amount, as he had promised he would do, after interviewing the manager of the factory. These important facts were not disclosed by the statement published in “The Dominion.” Their suppression rendered the statement completely misleading.” Mr. Cornwell stated that the New Zealand Fcderaion of Labour and its affiliations would assist and were assisting the returned servicemen to the best of their ability. The federation bad many thousands of members overseas.. An essential part of the task of rehabilitation was the maintenance and improvement, of the terms and conditions of employment in industry, so that after the war there would be jobs fit for returned servicemen. But for the work of the Dairy Factory Employees’ Union and the Federation of Labour, coupled with the beneficial legislation of the Labour Government, working conditions in dairy factories would not be fit for any one to work under. They were still far from attractive, and consistent vigilance and activity on the part of the Dairy Factory Employees’ Union was required. Mr. Sim enjoyed, during his temporary employment, the benefits of the union’s activities in improving ani protecting working conditions. The federajion certainly did not approve some of the expressions in the union secretary’s letter, but it was plain nonsense for the “Review” to assert that these expressions were directed against all servicemen, tens of thousands of whom willingly paid union dues before joining the forces, and would willingly resume payment after the war. The “Review’s” laboured argument tha_t the solitary exception was the rule would not carry any weight with the huge number of servicemen who knew and appreciated the value of trade unionism.

[The statement in “The Dominion” was taken from the “Review,” and was not greatly abbreviated. No material fact was omitted, a'ud it was stated that “ha (Sim) did not write to the secretary, as it was alleged he said he would, after seeing the factory manager.” The “Review” stated that “the Alton factory was very short-handed, and persuaded Trooper Sim to help them throughout a busy period. Union secretary Ross called at the factory and demanded from Sim one year’s subscription. Sirn refused to pay the whole year’s sub., but was then willing to pay for the period he was employed. It was alleged, however, that Ross demanded a full year’s fees, from which Sim would later receive a rebate for any period he would serve in the forces.” . .

The practice of requiring a year’s fees, subject to refund, is borne out by the Federation of Labour reply to the N.Z. R.S.A. This stated : “It seems first that there has Seen some misunderstanding, and secondly, that there have been some untruths expressed.’’ The policy of the N.Z. Dairy Factory Employees’ Union with regard to any person putting in a short period of work .covered by the union is for a refund to be made after the annual subscription is paid. The amount charged is five shillings entrance fee airl one shilling per week for the time worked. Under the circumstances we think that, this is a very fair method of dealing with all casual labour.” The “Review” stated editorially, after quoting the union secretary’s letter in its issue that “we are prepared to stand by him (Trooper Sim) entirely on the evidence so shamelessly supplied by the union secretary himself.”]