"HUNNISHNESS AND THE FARMERS' UNION."'

Horowhenua Chronicle, 30 June 1916, Page 2

"HUNNISHNESS AND THE FARMERS' UNION."'

4 (To the Editor). Sir,—l am at a Jobs to know what I can liavo done to call forth tho splencitic .spiui titterings of Jas Prouse in yours ol last night. 1 recounted certain facts cu'liied from the columns of the Evening Post of last week; they struck me at the time as being of sufficent importance to warrant further publicity. In recounting them I aluo osked those who ought to be in a position to do so, to elucidate them further. lam certain that no one need become personal or abusive in discussing them.

Jas. Prouse's letter, 'however, brings to light two important facts—iiiist, ho "was" aware of the tearing up of the Dairy Factory Workers' agreement by the employers, audi, second, he approves of tham doing so. He justifies his approval by .saying that the A.P.U. bad no legal status in making an Agreement (presumably ho means they were not registered under tho Arbitration Act). That, Sir, is only a half-truth. The whole truth is that at the time of the agreement being made they had got provisional registration pending the Arbitration Court ratifying it; that it was not finally 'ratified, with the inclusion of the dairy factory workers in it, is due to the opposition of the Farmere' Union in tho Court. Tho main pnint, however, is that the dairy employers'- representatives when they met the A.P.U. representatives, did so with o full knowledge of the fact in regard to the -A.P.U.'b standing, and cheerfully entered into an agreement which was in their mutual interest. Mr J. G. Hkrkness, secretary of tho National Dairy Association, recognized all tliis and put the position honestly and squarely before tiie other employers in his speech I quoted—"they had made the agreement andi ais honourable men they were bound to keep H."

Having uow filed away jas. Pirouse's a-pprovail of the "to hell with agreements" policy, for future reference. 1 want to enter my protest against it, and to point out the exact position Jae. Prouee's policy puts the dairy farmers in. Tlie Arbitration Act exists for the purpose of preventing strikes by protiding compulsory concilation and arbitration in .settling disputes. This compulsion applies to unions of employers and workers registered under it. In other-wordp lock-oute or strikes by unions registered are illegai. In €he present case, first by cancelling the registration of tho employers' union—tSe Dairy Association, second by preventing the registration of the workers' union, i.e. the A.P.U., strikes have become legalised- in the dairy industry, and the dairy farmers have lost the protection which the Act gives them against strikes. That, Mr Editor, is a fair statement of the position, and ift illustrates the danger to tlie dairy farmer ol allowing a squattcr-oontrolledi Farmers' Union to miake cats'-pa/ws of theui in their determination to down .itabour. In face of these facts I can afford to treat wiitTi contempt Ja-s. Pro use's clumsy and impudent endeavour to put me in the poeitioii'of being ' a fomentor of trouble.—-I *m, 4 to., JOHN ROBERTSON. Levin, June 28, 1916. '