JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10615, 14 June 1920, Page 10

JOCKEYS’ DISPUTE

THE REGENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION BY N.Z.J.A. SECRETARY. An official statement in regard to the dispute between the ownem and trainers of racehorses and the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association was made to a “New Zealand limes” reporter by Mr C. C. Sheath, secretary to the association, prior to his departure for Auckland on Saturday. At the conference called by the Minister for Labour under the irades nilspules Act, TbiC, car George Ganoid, ho said, acting as spokesman lor the delegates of the owners ana trainers, refused to enter into or discuss uie items in d-spuie, cm me loilovMng grounds; —(if 'mat ho hud in his possession the list (produced; containing umecy names of jockeys who had resigned; tneroiore the Now -Zealand Jockeys' Association did not represent jockeys ru the Dominion. (2) The New Zealand Ttacing Conte: once had alone the power to alter or amend its ru-iee, which included the items in dispute; therelore, it was futile lot the representatives of the owneis present to discuss the items! in dispute us submitted by the Now Zealand dickeys' Association in any shape or form. (3) That he refused to incognito the association, or any other association of jockeys, and that lie would only comer with jockeys outside of any association. THE “RESIGNATIONS.” , Mr Sheath, replied that it was news to him to hear that DU jockeys had resigned. The only person under the rules or the association who could receive resignations was himself, and ho had noi received anywhere near that number. He had not had an opportunity ot perusing the list, but the tact of fair George Clmord producing -it proved absolutely that the owners and trainers were a party to these resignations, and confirmed the statements of. the individual jockeys that they had been threatened with the severest form of punishment possible to mhiot on any jockey, namely. the refusal of owners to allow them to ride their horses, thus depriving them of their means of livelihood. Further, no jockey, Air Sheath emphatically stated, had resigned of his own free wi»l. Many members who had resigned had since rejoined, and slated, after mature consideration, that they would risk any punishment the owners threatened to indict on them. However, at the conference, delegates of the association were representing 226 jockeys, and even if the association had only 15 members the law of the land said clear, ly that the other party must meet them and discuss the items in dispute. THE AIDI OF THE LAW. Mr Sheath added that ho had informed the conference that the association had used every known conciliatory method to endeavour to induce the New Zealand Racing Conference to meet representatives of the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association, but without avail. There was no other course left open to the association than, to invoke the aid of the law, and the law had ordered them to hold a conference. If the delegates of the owners and trainers refused to discuss the items in dispute, the onus was on them for defying the law. The action of the delegates of the owners and trainers placed the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr P. Hally) and the delegates of the jockeys in an extremely delicate position—a position the [law would never allow. Mr Sheath said that after he had spoken, Sir George Clifford.was again asked to reconsider his decision, and was pinned down to the point, and dearly and distinctly stated that he would not recognise the New Zealand Jockeys’ Association as at present constituted, and, further, that he would not recognise or confer with any association of jockeys.