WHAT IS THE NEXT MOVE?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8338, 25 January 1913, Page 11

WHAT IS THE NEXT MOVE?

COMPANIES’ ULTIMATUM EXPIRED YESTERDAY. MEN TAKE NO NOTICE. Last evening tlio ultimatum issued to tlie slaughtermen by the combined representatives of the meat freezing and export companies expired. The offer which it contained has not been accepted by the men, who have, indeed, ignored it altogether. As the companies definitely intimated that, failing acceptance of the offer within the seven days’ grace allowed, they would consider themselves free to make such other arrangements for carrying on their business as may seem best, it may bo assumed that action on their part will very soon ho taken. SOME CONJECTURES. There is much conjecture as to what the companies are likely to do. In some quarters it is held that the works will he allowed to remain closed for the rest of this season and that the companies will roly upon being able to reopen them next season with non-union labour. It is not considered very likely that any serious attempt will be made to man tho boards with “farmers and farmers’ soils,” as just now there is great pressure of work throughout the country and the farmers are themselves crying out for more labour. The intentions of the companies cannot at present bo ascertained. A “Times” representative who yesterday made inquiries as to plans for the future was informed that no information on that head could be given. REJECTION “INCONCEIVABLE.” Yesterday, Sir George Clifford, _as chairman of tho conference of freezing companies which met in Wellington last week, despatched two letters _ *n reply to communications from bodies of sheep growers. . . To the Wellington provincial secretary of the Farmers’ Union ho wrote: “ I have to thank you for forwarding to m© the resolution passed at your meeting held on January -Othapproving of the action of the freezing companies in connection with the slaughtermen's demands. It is satisfactory to note that tho general feeling of your members was that the companies had offered very liberal terms. It was their intention to offer terms as liberal as was consistent with their duo performance of the duties which they owe to the great industry of which they form an integral part and to the workers, whose assistance they fully recognise. The rejection of such terms is almost inconceivable, but if such an event should occur it is gratifying to know that the companies will have the support of your union.” COMPANIES FAVOUR ARBITRATION, The other letter was to the secretary of the Canterbury Sheep-owners’ Union, to whom Sir George Clifford wrote: “In reply to yours of 21st inst. I can assure you that the freezing companies of New Zealand gladly unite in acceding to your recommendation to solve all differences with their slaughtermen by reference to arbitrators of trusted independence, whether mutually appointed or otherwise. I may recall to you that the companies have always been ready to adjust these difference* by the legal methods provided by statute or by any other fair system of arbitration. I would point outj however, that an agreement to arbitrate must contain provision for the enforcement of the consequent award for a definite period, I cordially concur with you in the expression of your desire that the companies, if reasonable proposals are continuously rejected, should co-operate with the members of the Slaughtermen’s Union who uphold the principle of arbitration, by which a safeguard is provided against deplorable disturbances of a business in tho permanent stability of which producers and workmen are alike so deeply interested. I confidently believe that a clear seise on the part of the majority of slaughtermen of their own best interests and those of their fellow-workers will render unnecessary your thoughtful offer of manual assistance, which, however, is gratefully acknowledged as a testimony of your recognition of the moderate and liberal attitude of the freezing companies.”