MINERS’ UNION.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, 30 October 1914, Page 2

MINERS’ UNION.

A LIVELY MEETING. A meeting of the members of the Taupiri Miners’ Union was held in the King’s Hall on Wednesday night. Mr A. A. Stewart, vice-president, in the chair. The attendance exceeded 250. When the chairman asked the secretary to read the minutes of the last meeting, Mr Hooker objected on the ground that as this was a special meeting called for a specific purpose, it was unnecessary to read the minutes. The objection sustained, Mr Stewart said that th 9 meeting had been called in order to give the the executive an opportunity of vindicating its position, which had had evidently been misconstrued, and of explaining its actions, which, according to the report of the meeting held last Saturday, had been misunderstood. He asked the secretary to place the facts of the case before the meeting, after which free discussion was invited. Mr Emery stated that the executive, under the power given it by the union rules had constituted itself a deputation and had waited on the directors in order to obtain that information which could not be got from the management. They wanted? in the first place, definite information as to the date of the resumption of work in the mines, and, in the second to ask that, during the interim, preference of employment should be given to the married members of the union who had families to maintain. The executive would give the members every justice in the way of reply—a method of treat raent that had not been accorded to him at last Saturday’s meeting. He asked the men to judge the position reasonably and impartially. Mr O. Webster : Can you state the reason why the executive proceeded to Auckland in front of the deputation appointed by the members of the union. The Chairman: We were within our rights in going, if we thought fit, and independent of the Union (signs of dissent and interruptions). A voice : Where is Dixon, the President. Has he left? Mr Emery : They say so. Mr Hooker asked the meeting to give the chairman and secretary every chance to clear themselves. Continuing, he asserted that the executive took out of the deputation’s -hands the to meet the directors for the purpose of drawing up an agreement. It was evident that the directors were aggreeable to meet the deputation and discuss matters with them ; but by jumping the claim of the deputation a meeting became impossible. Consequently, the directors were following on the same lines as the executive ; they were ignoring the deputation. The speaker was entering upon an exposition of the executive in connection with the past history of arbitration when he was asked by the chairman to keep to the point at issue. Resuming, Mr Hooker stated that the men had not been treated with the confidence they had a right to expect, and for the pst nine months they had known nothing except what they read in the newspapers. If the account of tire meeting of the executive and the directors was incorrect why did'not the executive refute the statements in the press, and show that they were not usurping the rights of the deputation ? The 1 executive was guilty. The men had been brow-beaten long • enough, and would now assert themselves. Mr Wesley endorsed the remarks of the preceding speaker, and denied that Mr Emery had ; been interrupted at the meeting held last Saturday. Mr Emery had the right to speak, but not tojumpup againandagain before his time for reply came. In all his life he never knew of a union executive that would ! make the men work for such wages as it deem d expedient' , Tire acquiesoense of the genera body was necessary. The Chairman: If you are not i careful I shall ask you to sit down. Mr Wesley: If you do I shall : call a meeting for 10 o'clock to- , morrow morning. The Chairman : Have you ever : been turned down ? i Mr Wesley : No, never. At this point interruptions and calls for order were pronounced. When order was restored, Mr Wesley continued his condemna--1 tion of the executive, and coni eluded by stating that if the i right of reply were not conceded ; he would call another meeting. ; Mr J. O’Brien read rule 25 which as said to be interpreted : by Mr T. M. Wilford, gave the 1 the executive power to carry out 1 an agreement independently of 1 the general body, f Mr Morris said he would like : to ask the convener of the preI sent meeting (Mr Emery) who - had elected him secretary of this union. The first day he (the ■ speaker) arrived in Huntly he , was offered the secretaryship of ' the union by Mr Fletcher at a l sixty pounds a year, but wc ild not lower his principles - by acceptance. Men, who acted , as the present executive did, i were not democratic, and should I have no following. What right I had men to come before them iii i order to get work ? They should be bumped out of office without - any delay. Mr J. O’Brien said that he ■ never knew that Mr Morris had i been offered the union secretary- . ship, and was still doubtful. ; Mr Hooker observed that , Mr Morris had told him about the offer prior to to-night's meeting.

A voice : He told me also. Mr Morris asserted that some of the victims of the disaster had been victims of the work of the executive. Mr Emery forcibly and strongly resented the last statement, and advised members to think for themselves, not follow men who were seeking for positions. On Monday next they would resume work under the old agreement, which held good, as the executive had done nothing in the matter, knowing I that a deputation had been appointed for that purpose. The executive had lieen blamed wrongly, and unless men dropped “ rotten ” sentiment and came down to solid thinking their fall was inevitable. “ I shall prove myself a man in the long run,” the speaker concluded. “ Wait and see.” An argument of a personal nature between Messrs Morris and Emery ensued at the conclusion of which Mr T. Malloy asked if the executive would be willing to concede to the deputation the right to visit the directors. The chairman was willing personally, to do so. Mr O. 1 Webster was of opinion that | power to draw up an agreement should be given to tfie deputation. The chairman thought that was the best course to follow. By doing so the deputation would have time to draw up the agreement desired before the arrival of the “ permitted ” explosive. Mr Hooker was pleased thatthe chairman had spoken as he did and that the understanding would be satisfactory. At the same time the deputation would not bind themselves to any agreement without the sanction of the men to whom it would be duly submitted. Mr O’Brien moved “ that the meeting endorse the action of the deputation in calling the indignation meeting last Saturday, and congratule the members of such deputation oh the stand they had taken to-night.” Seconded by Mr Warren, the motion was carried unanimously.