MINISTER’S REPLY TO LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Grey River Argus, 2 September 1948, Page 5

MINISTER’S REPLY TO LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Threats Not Method Of Conciliation

[Special to “Argus.”] WELLINGTON, Sept. 1. Replying to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, appearing in, this mornings newspapers, the Minister of Mines the Hon. A. McLagan, said that tne claims of the men, and of the management had been fully published in the newspapers, and if Mr Hollana still did not know what the strike was about, which was evident from the tenor of his remarks, he had just failed to make reasonable enquiry. Mr Holland has had one incunsion into a miners’ strike at Huntly, with somewhat unhappy results,” he said. “Nd doubt he now realises from experience, that these are not matters for a tyro; hence the general vagueness of his proposals for settling the dispute. “It will be recalled that, at one time, Mr Holland considered that striking miners should be sent to goal—and that, .subsequently, and at closer range, he considered that they had a right to strike.

'Tt is unlikely, therefore, that the public will accept him as an authority on the present occasion. ‘‘Mr Holland’s remarks about'penalties seem to be equally contraaictory,”said the Minister. “In 1946, he said the Law should never be used to threaten working people. However, in fairness to him. it should be remembered that 1946 was election year. PROVISION ALREADY FOR SETTLEMENT “There is ample provision for the settlement of all disputes in the Huntly Mines by the mediation or a Local Disputes Committee presided over by an independent chairman, said Mr'McLagan. “This committee was established at the request of tne Union; has been in operation in the district for some time, and has given satisfaction to all parties. . “The. leaders of the present strike have themselves sat on this committee, dealing with disputes at other mines in the district. In addition, the Coal Mines Council exists to deal with matters which are net exclusively of local application. “In the present casje, the North Miners’ Union is opposed t 0 the strike, and considers that work should Jbe resumed and the disoute settled by the Local Disputes Committee which Is ‘.the

agreed and constitutional procedure,” he added.MEN’S DECISION ’’The men employed at the mine?; in the district have, by a “rank and file” vote, decided, by a substantia, majority, to endorse the attitude of the Executive of the Union on this question. STRIKERS’ PROPOSAL “The men now on strike refused, in the first instance, to recognise the Disputes Committee, or any other body to adjudicate the matter, and insisted upon their claim being paid as a condition precedent to work being resumed. Later, they modified their attitude somewhat, and proposed that, prior payments be made and the matter then be placed before the Disputes Committee, which would determine whether or not the money so paid should be refunded, fine Management of the mine refused to accede to this request.

A SETTLEMENT BASIS “A difference of opinion over the temporary custody of a small sum of money is too unimportant to warrant the stoppage of work. I proposed that it be paid to a third and independent party, that work be resumed forthwith, and that the Local Disputes Committee adjudicate on the claim in the usual way. This has not been accepted so far, but I am heneful that commonsense will prevail, and that an early settlement on this basis will be possible.” concluded Mr MvLagan.