ARAPUNI STRIKE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 95, 13 July 1927, Page 16

ARAPUNI STRIKE

DISSENSION IN CAMP ‘POCKET-EDITION COMMUNISTS’ JUDGE FRAZER’S DECISION “TT was a small minority that decided the Arapuni strike,” said Mr. A. Cook, secretary to the New Zealand Workers’ Union, addressing the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon during the hearing of an application concerning industrial awards at the Arapuni hydro-electric works. A number of the men, said Mr. Cook, were Dalmatians, and they did not know a great deal about the matter. “They were aided and abetted by a few pocket-edition Communists, who had read a few papers from Moscow, and who seized the opportunity of trying to become industrial leaders.” The whole thing could have been very quickly fixed up, continued Mr. Cook, had the wiser counsels been allowed to prevail. “1 can say, however, that these men will not again have the opportunity of leading men into such a foolish strike. The men now realise that the whole thing was ill-advised, and that if the question had been left to the New Zealand Workers’ Union it could have been settled without any strike. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer: There is never any occasion for strikes. There is always a better way out. A letter, which was stated to contain a good deal of bad and abusive language, was handed to his Honour.

Mr. Cook stated that the letter was sent out to members of the union in an attempt to coerce them into striking.

At a later stage, in cross-examining Mr. R. F. Barter, representative of the Amalgamated Engineers’ Union, Mr. Cook contended that Mr. Barter had advised the strikers to carry on. Mr. Barter gave this an emphatic denial.

Mr. Cook: When I arrived at Arapuni you were parading up and down the platform like a cock sparrow. SHOULD GET TOGETHER

In delivering judgment, his Honour said that unfortunately there was a suggestion that some unions were endeavouring to secure an advantage out of the position which arose at Arapuni. He hoped that such was not the case.

There had been dissensions among the unions, added his Honour, and although the court was a disinterested party, he would counsel them to settle their grievances and come to a working agreement. In regard to the application of the Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth Company, Ltd., which sought the registration of thfe renewal of its agreement with the New Zealand Workers’ Union, embracing all workers at Arapuni. his Honour said that it had been found most satisfactory in works like Arapuni. which closely resembled Public Works schemes, to have all the men operating under similar conditions, while preserving their respective trade rates of wages, and to that end the agreement had been framed. There had always been a provision whereby the company could contract individually with crafts unions in the matter of wages, added his Honour. The agreement would be renewed as desired. As to whether the company could contract with labourers’ unions other than the New Zealand Workers’ Union, there was no strict legal bar. However, it would be impossible to carry on work at Arapuni under separate agreements with two labour unions, and. that being the case, the court could best answer in the negative.