How Strike at Arapuni Began

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 94, 12 July 1927, Page 11

How Strike at Arapuni Began

WHEN UNIONS FALL OUT COMPANY’S APPLICATION INCIDENTS leading up to the industrial dispute at Arapuni were disclosed at this morning's sitting of the Arbitration Court in the hearing of an application by Sir W. G. Armstrong, Co., Ltd. The company, who is a party to an agreement with the New Zealand Workers’ Union, asked for an opinion of the Court as to whether it was entitled to enter into any further agreements with craft unions, and also as to whether it was entitled to enter into further agreements with the General Labourers’ Union other than through the New Zealand Workers’ Union. His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, presided, Mr. W. Scott, employers’ representative, and Mr. A. L. Monteith, workers’ representative, being associated with him. An application brought by Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth and Co., Ltd., asked for an opinion of the court as to whether the company was entitled to enter into any further agreements with craft unions, and secondly, whether the company was entitled to enter into any further agreements with the General Labourers’ Union other than with the New Zealand Workers’ Union.

Mr. B. L. Hammond appeared for Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth and Co., Ltd., Messrs. J. Dickson and Barter for the Auckland Branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, Messrs. J. Dickson and Sutherland, for the Auckland Labourer ' Union, and Messrs. A. Cook and Stove for the New Zealand Workers’ Union, the parties interested. COMPANY A CHOPPING BLOCK Mr. Hammond said that the position of the company was that it would stand rigidly behind any agreement it had made. It was a question whether it was competent for either the union or the company to enter into another agreement. An application to add the company to an award had been made by various unions and the court saw fit to include the company only as far as the wages clause was concerned. He contended that the representatives of the New Zealand Workers’ Union were authorised to conclude the agreement made. Also, he submitted, tliat there was an agreement between the Amalgamated Engineers’ Union and the New Zealand Workers’ Union by which the two unio- s had been associated in various ways. Because those unions had apparently now fallen out he cons' lered it was hardly fair that the company should be made the chopping block. The agreement had been made by the workers and he considered that it should stand. N.Z.W.U. IN MAJORITY Whether the workers at Arapuni were content to follow Mr. Cook or Mr. Sutherland, said Mr. Hammond, he contended that the New Zealand Workers’ Union held a majority of the members and had made the agreement with the company. The present case he submitted, was one in which workers were trying to upset a contract by resigning from a body which was authorised to enter into the agreement made. For the Engineers’ Union, Mr. Dickson contended that engineers could not be members of the New Zealand Workers Union, and therefore could not be bound by the agreement. He submitted that the engineers had not been a party to the agreement and therefore could not be bound by it. not kicked out ;n5 r ', B ? rter Said that at th e meetmg at Arapuni, called by the New Zealand Workers’ Union, admittance was by ticket only, and there were no engineers present. Neither were the conditions of claim as set forth put before the engineers. John Kelly, who stated that he was branch president of the New Zealand Workers’ Union at Arapuni, said that no one was allowed to vote unless a member of the union. There were about 300 out of 430 men on the job present. To Mr. Hammond: He had not yet been expelled from the Workers’ Union. To put it politely, he had not yet been “kicked out.” To Mr. Cook: When he was elected president he did not say that things lad been too quiet at Arapuni, but '.hat henceforth they would get plenty of strikes. He did not remember Mr. Cook instructing him to call a meeting of all unionists on the job. To Mr. Hammond: He did not raise any objections regarding the award at the Arapuni meeting, because he considered it w-as neither the time nor the place. Mr. Hammond: Not the time, when you were drawing up the terms? Witness: It was not my place to; the intellectual giants from Wellington were there. Mr. Hammond: You did not interest yourself about the engineers until the strike—or, rather, I should saj’, the industrial dispute—occurred. “STRIKE DRUNK” John B. Williams, organiser of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, said that when he went to Arapuni he met a body which called themselves a “strike committee.” Mr. Kelly had previously said he would like to lead a strike at Arapuni. Witness thought he was strike drunk. Mr. Kelly and the strike committee led the men into a strike which was never popular. At the meeting, when it was agreed to secede from the New Zealand Union, there were quite a number who voted who were not members of the union. He even saw one man, a farmer, who was not on the job. (Proceeding.)