A MINISTERIAL DICTATOR.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 8, 25 January 1937, Page 6

A MINISTERIAL DICTATOR.

It would no doubt be with keen interest that those concerned about the conduct of future industrial "disputes" Would read in our Saturday 's number the report issued by the Minister of Labour on the "settlement" of differences between certain Auckland freezing companies and their employees. As has been said before, the men may ha-ve had what they believed to be a quite just grievance, but wha.t have to be considered^are the means they adopted for having them remedied. At the outset it has to be understood that with the full knowledge of experience the men's union voluntarily approaehed the Arbitration Court for a new award regarding wages and the hours of work, completely conscious that the award when made would be legally binding upon them as upon the employers. No sooner was the award made, after a lengthy and thorough discussion before the Court, than they took exception to some of its terms. Representations made to the employers led to a conference between employers and employees, which, however, brought no satisfactory understanding. The men then resorted to the old "go slow" plan of compelling compliance by reducing output by about one-half. To this the employers would not submit and so paid off the hands in a perfectly legal wa.y. Thereupon the men took complete possession of the works, thus preventing the use of them even for the storage of the produce of the dairymen, who were in no way concerned with the subject of the dispute, which was confined to meat killing and freezing. Of their intention to follow this course the Minister says he had no notice whatever from the men, and it was only when Lis attention was drawn by the employers to the serious consequences threatening that he intervened. As the outcome of a visit to the scene of the dispute the Minister suceeded in "inducing" — his own word — the men to vacfite the premises and resume work. But this was only on their receiving his definite promise of a further conference at which, so it was made pretty cilear, he would have the last word. In the end he "directed" — again his own word — that, so far as concerned wages, the men should get all they now asked and something appreciabty more than their advocate claimed before the Court. It will thus be seen that theMinister has arrogated to himself the right to vary, entirely according to his own ideas, the finding of a Court functioning under legislation which he himself was mainly responsible for bringing into its present operation. Those are the naked facts of the case that cut at once at the roots of the Court's authority and virtually make all its findings subject to variation at the Minister 'a will. An attempt. has becn made to find justification of the Minister's action in a "precedent1' provided by a Reform Minister of Labour some score of years or more ago. That case is, however, by no menas in point. In the first place, it was then a "Tory" Minister who cqnsidered the employees, most of them political opponents, were not being fairly treated and he was in no way rnfiluenced by any "intimidating" tactics such as were used in the present instance. Then, too, the disputants mutually agreed, under no threats or coercion, to submit their differences to the arbitration of Cabinet as a whole. To compare the action of the Hon. H. T. Armstrong with that of the Hon. W. H. Herries is little short of an insult to the memory of a fearless man who fully earned the respect and regard ofpoliticians of all shades. On his part Mr. Armstrong, presumably after consultation with his chief and his ministerial colleagues, has manifestly given way before a section of his own trade union fo3 lowers, who have adopted a most dang.erous sample of Commumst direct action ' such as has never before been seen in^this country. HE most certainJy has created a "precedent" that in essence amounts to a cordial invitation to all discontented trade unionists to pursue a like course with possible evil consequences it is not difficult to foresee. What do law-abiding trade unionists say about it?