Marking his return to active involvement in the Auckland union, Young at a 7 May 1931 meeting questioned a payment made to the union president, at the time unemployed. By 6 August 1931 he had gathered sufficient support to be elected on to the executive to fill a vacancy and on 3 September 1931 was elected to the executive's finance committee. From 1 October 1931 he became a delegate to the national conciliation council. At that same October executive meeting he was nominated as one of the union's representatives to the Auckland Labour Representation Committee (LRC), which covered all the electorates in the Auckland area. While gaining increasing importance in the leadership of the executive a fortuitous event for his future union career occurred. The scretary who had served since Long's departure, Alfred Jackson, was dismissed as of 6 November 1931. Six months before it is unlikely that Young would have predicted this outcome, and opportunity.

The president's annual report, given on 26 November 1931, reported a very heavy financial loss on the part of the union and accused the secretary of gross negligence. This included spending unncessary time and money in Wellington while at the Award conciliation talks, and withdrawing expenses without authorisation. Young was viewed as a suitable temporary alternative, and appointed temporary secretary from 7 November 1931, at Seven Pound a week. That would have been around about the same income he received as a hotel manager. The 14 November 1931 executive meeting then resolved "that Mr Ernest Davis be requested to facilitate temporarily relieving Mr Young of his duties to enable him to take up the position of temporary secretary to the union" on a full time basis.

At the time Young was still working as a hotel manager for Davis, and is said by Barry Gustafson [From the cradle to the grave, page 150] to have assisted Davis with his promotion of the career of John A. Lee to secure the Labour nomination for both the then marginal electorates of Grey Lynn and Auckland East in 1930. Individual members of unions affilated to the Labour Party had the right to vote as to whom their Labour candidate was in their electorate, and the unions generally backed Lee over the other candidate Fred Bartram. Davis put on taxis to carry union members to their nearest Labour Party polling booth. [Hyde, Robin - The Grey Lynn Labour split, NZ Observer 24.9.1931 page 5] However, Lee was elected MP fror Grey Lynn at the election of 2 December 1931 only a month after Young became temporary secretary. Thus any role played by Young was while he was still a manager for Davis, and certainly not on behalf of the hotel workers' union. At the 1931 election Young likely voted for Lee's then ally F.W. Schramm in Auckland East.

As in 1928 Young was living apart from his wife. Emily and likely their 14 year old son were still living nearby at 41 Third Avenue in Kingsland, within the Grey Lynn electorate, and Young joined them there in 1932 according to Cleave's Auckland directory. By 1935 they had moved into the Parnell electorate at 25 Highwic and later to Sarawia Street. They, or from 1941 just Emily, remained in that electorate, from 1938 part of Remuera, until 1946 when Sarawia Road went into the Parnell electorate. In 1944 Young was living at 27 Wynyard Street in the City. Their son Cecil Francis was with them both in 1938 according to electoral rolls, but by 1941 he and wife Vida had moved to Grey Lynn. Cecil was employed in the union office as an office cadet and later organiser from around March 1935 until he went off to war in the second half of 1942. It should be noted that inclusion of both Young and Emily on an electoral roll doesn't confirm the continuity of their marriage.

In 1931 the executive received no less than 69 applications for the position as secretary of what was a major Auckland union of 2,300 members. The candidates were trimmed down to 10 and then to 3. Young's main rival would have been Bernard Martin who was at the time also secretary of the Auckland brewery workers' union. Born in Penge, London in 1882, Martin was a well educated "Blue Coat" boy and had worked in Auckland as a waiter. He had been an executive member of the Auckland hotel and restaurant workers' union, served as vice-president and from 1912 to 1913 was assistant secretary to Long. He had taken over the Auckland brewery workers' from Long in 1913, and had later also become secretary of the small manufacturing jewellers', coachworkers' and female bookbinders' unions. He was also at the time president of the Auckland Labour Representation Committee, and had been active in the Auckland Trades and Labour Council and the Auckland Trade Union Secretaries Association. In 1931 he had just been elected as a Labour Auckland City Councillor. Whether he could devote all his time to a union in crisis was likely the determing question.

Young was appointed full time secretary of the Auckland hotel and restaurant workers' union from 19 November 1931. Previously his active union career had covered a relatively short period of time. Yet, on 26 November 1931 the union president welcomed Young saying "he possessed a unique knowledge of our business and affairs and has every qualification for the position". Young now was the secretary of a potentially powerful union in the Auckland area. It was also part of a national Federation of Hotel Workers' Unions (FHWU) which unlike most other unions negotiated Dominion wide rather than Industrial District Awards. The first had come in February 1924 for licensed hotel employees, in November 1924 for tea rooms and restaurant employees and in July 1925 for private hotel employees. However, the industrial climate had changed markedly with the onset of the 1930's depression.

Ex officio Young became a representative on the Auckland District Council of the Alliance of Labour. The FHWU had affilitated in February 1929, but Auckland hadn't played an active role until 1931. He also became secretary of the FHWU around 26 February 1932, moved that office to Auckland and led the renegotation of the licensed hotel employees Award later in 1932. That was a key Award as the pay rates set by that Award were then echoed in the private hotel employees' Award.

Following the March 1931 Finance Act the Arbitration Court ordered a 10% reduction in all Award wages, as above no doubt stirring Young into renewing his union involvement. From April 1932 compulsory conciliation and arbitration was removed for all Award negotiations, except where there was a predominance of women workers Although "bar maids" were effectively abolished after 1910, with the mutual agreement of both the liquor trade and the unions, women still made up a large number of other licensed hotel staff. Accordingly the FHWU sought an exemption from the abolition of compulsory arbitration and prolonged the negotiations in order to hold off the imposition of wage cuts for as long as possible. They also went to the leadership of the Alliance of Labour for assistance. Help came from both Jim Robert's watersiders' and F.P. Walsh's seafarers' unions, including boycotts of selected favourite licensed premises. Young's main dealings were with the Alliance secretary Jim Roberts, who also co-ordinated the requisite legal briefs. In August 1932 the FHWU made a direct appeal to licensees, a strategy possibly recommended by Roberts.

The consensus legal opinion was that the Arbitration Court could only fix the minimum rates of female workers - around 70% of the union's membership. Ultimately the licensed hotel's Award was settled mainly in conciliation with only a 5% wage cut and dated from 24 October 1932. Other sources say there was a 14.6% reduction and a lower rate for probationers. That Award lasted until March 1935. Another consequence was that the private hotel employees' Award became instead linked to the lower paying tea rooms and restaurant employees' Award. The private hotel's Award was settled in December 1932 with a 23.1% reducton in the basic wage. The tearooms and restaurants' Award was broken into 8 separate District Awards and a separate Northern Industrial Distict Agreement with a 14.3% cut, a lower probation rate and greatly reduced overtime rates.

Roberts led the negotiations for the licensed hotel's dispute and in a letter of 29 September 1932 Young expressed to Roberts "deep appreciation of the splendid assistance given by you and your organisation, in the successful fight put up by our Federation" (6.12.1932 - WU - D 137 Roberts papers). This was part of a regular correspondence between Young and Roberts from at least 1932 to 1936. F.P. Walsh became more involved in FHWU affairs with inclusion in the April 1934 tearooms' Award talks, and he later assisted Young reorganise the Wellington hotel workers' union. A former Communist and 6 years younger than Young, Walsh was also much more physically agressive, intelligent and driven. Roberts was 10 years older.

The Auckland District Council of the Alliance of Labour went into abeyance after November 1932, but over the next two years Young urged Roberts that it be reinvigorated. The Auckland Trades and Labour Council had also gone into abeyance from 1927 to 1929, but had revived after 1929. The Alliance ultimately hoped to unite the two Councils as a united Auckland District Council, but under the Alliance of Labour rather the New Zealand Federation of Trades and Labour Councils . On 31 January 1934 a new Auckland District Council was established, representing just the hotel workers', watersiders' and seafarers' unions. That Council approached Fred Martin from the previous Council for minute books and other assets. The March 1934 Alliance of Labour conference confirmed the reorganisation of the Auckland District Council and noted moves to include co-ordinate various local metal and engineering unions. Young became the District Council secretary.

By February 1934 Young secured the Auckland union's backing for his standing for the presidency of the LRC. He was unsuccessful, perhaps not surprising given his level of previous political involvement. He hadn't even attended the 1933 Labour Party conference. Later in 1934 an allegation of too friendly links with the brewery owners surfaced. A member claimed he was sacked from the Hotel Auckland because of Young. The matter concerned alleged "watering" of whisky on the premises and a brief newspaper report of Young's submissions to a tribunal caused some members to circulate "the story that Mr Young had given evidence on behalf of the brewers" [1935 AHWU President's Annual Report]. Most union officials are tagged with the epithet of "being too close to the bosses" during their union careers, but whether this was isolated or more symtomatic is an open question. There was a similar allegation at the 30 November 1938 Annual General Meeting of the Auckland union of "the secretary's (Young's) corrupt asociation with the heads of that company (Hancocks, of which Davis was a director). Specifics were lacking.

Relations with local Labour MPs appeared good, at least in 1933. Both John A Lee and Bill Parry (respectively MPs for Grey Lynn and Auckland Central) spoke to meeting of union members on more than one occasion. However, Roberts who was by this time Vice President of the Labour Party suggested to Young in a letter of 26 July 1934 that he consider becoming the Labour candidate for Hamilton at the next election. That would require Young gaining prior approval from the Auckland LRC to be included on the Party list of approved candidates. Young accordingly obtained a nomination from the Grey Lynn Branch of the Labour Party, where he resided at the time. However, when the nomination came before the Auckland LRC on 27 September 1934 J.S. (Jock) Stewart opposed his nomination (University of Auckland Library, A 65, Box 1, Volume 1). Stewart raised Young's two convictions for Award breaches in 1913 and 1926 (see 1888-1931). At the same time one Harold (Jock) Barnes was readily endorsed for the list.

A special meeting was held on 30 September 1934 to consider a 3 page "Stewart v Young" report. On the first count Young claimed that he had actively urged the union to prosecute in 1913 to test the wording of the Award, and that the employer had paid both her own fines and those of her employees. He also claimed that it was the employer's solicitor who raised the question of the name M. Young being used on the indictment rather than he trying to avoid prosecution. Further he was able to call a witness to the events, the current union president P. Walsh, who was on the Rotorua executive at the time. Stewart didn't present any further evidence, but claimed he had his own witness. On the second count Young claimed that it was a minor charge and there was no proof he was skimming off his staff's pay. Again Stewart didn't produce further evidence. The LRC was left questionning Stewart's motives, given that both Young and Stewart were members of the Grey Lynn Branch. Naturally the whole matter cast doubt over Young's candidacy. At the time of the May 1935 Labour Party conference the Hamilton candidate still hadn't been chosen.

At a 21 January 1935 special meeting the 25 LRC delegates in attendance voted that Labour shouldn't contest the Auckland Electric Power Board by-election in protest at the fact that only ratepayers could vote, and not all residents. In a letter of 23 January 1935 to Roberts, Young confirmed that Labour's Arthur Rosser and Jo Sayegh had accepted this ruling but that Bill Jordan, Labour MP for Manukau, had decided to stand as an Independent while paying his own expenses. Young viewed this as making the LRC "look ridiculous" and sought the withdrawal of Jordan's nomination for Manukau. To back this extreme response Young further claimed that Jordan might break with Labour, and asked Roberts as Vice-President of the Labour Party to investigate and resolve the matter.

The 24 January 1935 meeting supported resolutions proposed by Young and seconded by F.E. Martin, secretary of the LRC, as follows: "That we consider Mr W.J. Jordan's action in nominating for the Auckland Power Board in defiance of the recent decision of the LRC tantamount to the refusal by Mr Jordan to accept the decision of the LRC as binding upon himself as a Parliamentary Representative of the Party" and "That we request the National Executive to hold an immediate investigation into the action of Mr W.J. Jordan MP in nominating for the Auckland Power Board in defiance to the decision of the Auckland LRC". Roberts replied to Young's 23 January letter on 28 January fully supporting the actions of the LRC.

However, Young had written a further letter on 25 January 1935 to Roberts saying "we are not going to have any of these Bible - banging, greazers, scabs and renegades get away with any old Mother Hubbard as far as the political Party is concerned ... if a man rats on us politically" he was a scab in Young's eyes. He also wrote that the watersiders', tramway workers' and hotelworkers' "had a gutsfull of the Lee and Parry business", specifically their involvement in high interest loan schemes. Roberts responded that airing the matter was "in the interests of the Labour Party" (WU - I 12 letter to Young of 25 January 1935) and later that Jordan should toe the line. Roberts further criticised Savage for not backing the National Executive.

A special meeting of 4 February 1935, with Young not in attendance, recommended to the full LRC "That as Mr W.J. Jordan MP has violated the Constitution and refused to abide by the decision of the National Executive and the Auckland LRC, this LRC in accordance with the Constitution calls upon the National Executive to withdraw Mr Jordan's names as a Labour Candidate, and further to call for nominations for the Manukau seat". A full meeting of the LRC on 7 February 1935 with 48 delegates representing 20 affiliates carried that resolution by 28(9) to 11. The claim was that Jordan was acting contrary to Section 15 of the Labour Party consitution. All the Auckland Labour MPs, except Schramm, supported Jordan and were now joined by others such as Mary Dreaver who claimed "some Communistic influence" (I 12 11 February 1935 Young to Roberts) was behind the complaint against Jordan. The LRC confirmed its position at meetings on 25 and 28 February 1935, the latter with only 4 dissenters.

Young's supposed domination of the LRC over this matter, argued by Barry Gustafson in his biography of Michael Joseph Savage "From the cradle to the grave" (Reed Methuen 1986 pages 160-162), is not apparent here nor later on. At the 28 February 1935 meeting Young had nominated for Vice-President of the LRC and for the executive and as a trustee. He was successful only for the executive and that on the fifth ballot. Further, at the 25 July 1935 and 7 August 1935 meetings it was determined that as the FHWU was unfinancial then Young was no longer eligible to even be on the executive. The re-affilation was accepted on 26 September 1935 and the 24 October 1935 meeting voted Young back on to the executive.

That Jordan was in breach of Section 15 of the Labour Party constitution was upheld by the National Executive on 1 February 1935 and upheld at the April 1935 Labour Party conference. The National Executive on 13 February nevertheless confirmed that it had no athority to withdraw Jordan's endorsement as Labour candidate for Manukau. Supporters of the LRC, especially secretary Fred Martin and Young, claimed at the conference that others had been expelled for similar. Eventually the National Executive's rulings on these and other matters were upheld 116 to 10. Lee later described Young as relying heavily on copious glasses of water during his performance at the conference (John A. Lee's Weekly, 4 June 1941, page 4). Jordan received just 660 votes for the Power Board.

The second, and related local body nomination issue, began at the 28 February 1935 LRC meeting. No less than 6 candidates were nominated for the Auckland Mayoral candidacy: Bill Anderton, Charles Bailey, Bernard Martin, Rex Mason, Joseph Savegh and Jock Stewart. The necessity of putting all names up for consideration was cofirmed by the National Executive on 8 March 1935 and put to the LRC on 11 March 1935. In the meantime Anderton had withdrawn. At the 14 March 1935 meeting 59 delegates voted and Joseph Sayegh was elected. However, at the 24 March 1935 meeting there was a call for an enquiry into "disparaging statements made about the Mayoral candidate Mr J. Savegh" and mention of a petition to upset the decision. Nevertheless Sayegh remained the nominee.

The whole matter was again raised at the April 1935 Alliance of Labour Conference where "Mr Young had protested ... that certain M.P.s (he didn't mention any names) were going around New Zealand saying that Fred Young and Walter Pauling [a former president of the Auckland watersiders' union] had received a decent back hander from Ernest Davis for the purpose of using their influence on the LRC to see that a weaker candidate was chosen as the Mayoral candidate for Auckland, in order to allow Ernest Davis to win the election" (1935 FHWU conference report). Young was reported calling Labour M.P.s "a slimy lot of grease merchants". The minutes of the 1935 Alliance of Labour conference don't mention these specific phrases but while seconding a call for unity between the two wings of the labour movement, Young was still determined to have his say. Politicians "had made charges against him and other men in Auckland, but they failed to bring any proof of these charges" (A of L 16-19/4/1935 WTU - MSY-4151). Pauling died on 15 May 1936.

Young later reported that the L.R.C. didn't want Mason (Labour M.P. for Auckland Suburbs and unsuccessful Mayoral candidate in 1931 and 1933) as their candidate as he had boosted a private bill in Parliament to give Waikato River water rights to William Goodfellow and the Auckland "Kelly Gang". The "Kelly gang" was a derogatory label given to certain Auckland financiers. Instead Young claimed that the LRC wanted Ted Phelan to be the candidate. Phelan had been secretary of the Auckland timber workers' union since 1907, was a war veteran and J.P., and had served as a Labour Councillor since 1925. He had topped the poll in May 1933, but he had refused to stand for the Mayoralty as he was also running the Hotel Auckland for Ernest Davis. Young reported that he had offered Phelan 5 Pounds a week (whether this was from his own funds was not stated) if he resigned from the pub and ran against Davis. Savegh was the second highest polling Labour Councillor in 1933 and a local small businessman. Eventually Sayegh lost by only 363 votes.

The National Executive confrmed at the April Labour Party Conference the need for all candidates to be considered. After heated argument, especially by Young's opponents Jim Roberts, Bob Semple and John A. Lee, Peter Fraser proposed and Young seconded a motion that a special committee be formed at the conference to further investigate allegations against members of the LRC., especially Young. Some claimed that the Auckland LRC. was dominated by the brewery interests, but while Davis from Hancocks assisted Labour in a "noblesse oblige" manner other brewers suported Reform (such as his brother Eliot Davis) or Liberal (such as Myers from New Zealand Breweries) and later National (Hunt, Graeme - The Rich List, p 162 - 163). Sir Henry Kelliher from rival Dominion Breweries veered more towards Social Credit.

The report back to the conference said that the whole proceedings had been carried out in accordance with the Party constitution, and that the candidate had been selected by a majority of the LRC. There had been no "mock ballot papers" circulated, but concern was expressed that the Auckland HWU had block voted. There was also no evidence of any bribe but the atmosphere on the Auckland LRC was determined as hostile to the Auckland Labour MPs, and the National Executive declared it would step in if that continued. It had already removed officials in the Palmerston North LRC. Young was singled out for blame, but instead for what he was suposed to have said at the Alliance of Labour conference. There he had supposedly "spoke in libellous, derogatory and damaging terms of the Members of the Party in Parliament" (WTU MS-270/356). The National Executive was satisfied that "the general references of Mr Young to Members of Parliament are detrimental to the interests of the Party".

At the Alliance of Labour conference Young is supposed to have described Labour MPs as "political fakirs and slimy bastards" (Gustafson - page 161) and at the Labour Party conference he is supposed to have called the Labour Party leadership " a lot of swivel-titted, brothel-bred bastards" and Walter Nash in particular a "pale pink Bible-banging bastard with Jesus on his watch-chain" (Gustafson - page 162). Gustafson further says that it was "probably with justification" that Young as suspected of taking a bribe over the Sayegh candidacy (Gustafson - page 161) The first appears to have come from Ted Dye and reported to the secretary of the Canterbury Trades Council while the second came from Bill Pharazyn. Certainly the official records of the two conferences don't include these outbursts, but they are certainly within Young's vocabulary. The bribe allegation may have originated from John A. Lee.

Young's expulsion from the Party was averted 44 to 41, but he was nevertheless censured 60 to 24. Mason's name did go forward at the last minute for the Mayoralty, but he then withdrew. These matters have been referred to in biographies of Nash [Sinclair], Lee [Olssen] and Savage [Gustafson], but without reference to Young's counter claims. If Young's version is correct, then he certainly wasn't acting as a "stooge" for Davis. The popular Davis may well have beaten anyone Labour put up, and perhaps Labour might have been better to endorse Davis. Certainly the "New Zealand Truth" (1 May 1935) regarded Davis as the likely successful candidate for the 9 May election, and he remained Mayor until 1941.

At the same election while trying for places on the Labour ticket for both the Auckland Harbour and Transport Boards, Young ended up as a candidate just for the Auckland Transport Board. On 28 February 1935 Young had withdrawn from nomination for the Auckland City Council Labour ticket and his first run at elected public office in May 1935 was unsuccessful. His narrow avoidance of expulsion had also put an end to any hope of the Hamilton nomination, and possibly damaged his position with the FHWU.

Young had had in the meantime a further clash with Rex Mason. At the 28 March 1935 LEC Annual General Meeting Mason claimed Young had previously inferred he had "missappropriated" a donation by a Mr Forbes Eadie, and demanded an apology. Another special meeting followed on 7 April 1935. Young rejected charges that he had actually said anything negative. Mason replied that there were differences of opinion amongst those attending the meeting what Young had actually said. Young claimed he was under attack for the "second time" and said Mason should have checked with him what he in fact had said. Soon after the meeting degenerated into a war of words between Mason and Eadie, and Mason withdrew his comments about Young.

By the time of the May 1935 FHWU conference in Wellington Young had to overcome lingering doubts about his fitness to remain as FHWU secretary, particular the attacks from both the Alliance of Labour and Labour Party conferences. Here he spoke of "serious allegations made against myself" [1935 Conference Report], referring to those made by Ted Dye and Leckie at the Labour Party conference, they had also attended the Alliance of Labour conference, and claimed "vindication". It should be noted that even as early as 1935, there was a obviously hostile personal relationship between Young and Lee, despite both being alleged protegees of Ernest Davis. Young had also publicly raised Lee's involvement in high interest fringe financial institutions. Both Lou Glover and Fintan Patrick Walsh spoke in support of Young at the FHWU conference and at the 1936 Alliance of Labour conference condemned any further "divulgence" of business to any other party. Roberts was also still active in FHWU affairs, acting for the Wellington union in September 1935.

At the November 1935 General Election the union set up committees of union members in each Auckland electorate to work for a Labour victory. The Labour victory lead to monumental changes within the FHWU and for union members generally. On 5 February 1936 the Auckland union reported 1,500 members, but the executive meeting of 4 November 1936 noted a major expansion for the Auckland union, to now also cover hospital employees. This extension of membership was echoed by the FHWU elsewhere in New Zealand. Local government employees had been long barred from unionising until legislation concerning local bodies was changed in 1936, and initially employees favoured general hospital board employees' unions. When local body officers' formed separate unions the mana of both Young and Reginald Brooks from the Canterbury hotel workers' union ensured that the Labour government favoured their coverage of non administrative and non nursing employees. Young continued the Alliance of Labour's policy of supporting industry wide Awards but opposing compulsory arbitration. The union later boasted of the 'community of interest' it had with the employers, thus not requiring compulsory arbitration.

On 27 March 1936 Roberts was still writing to Young referring to him as "dear friend" (WU Roberts papers D 259/3). However, this relationship was soon to end. Lou Glover was one of the FHWU representatives at the 1936 Alliance of Labour conference, as he was no longer President of the Waterside Workers' Federation, and at the conference relations between Roberts and Glover soon broke down. Walsh claimed the minutes of the previous conference were "anti-Glover" and "poisonous" (WU Roberts papers D 276/1). There was also a dispute over acceptance of the freezing workers' unions as Glover and Walsh wanted to accept the newly organised unions, which included those previously regarded as "scabs". Roberts on the other hand wanted to revive the old unions.

Roberts and representatives of the miners', watersiders' workers' and the Waihi and Dunedin District Councils then walked out and Young replaced him as minutes secretary. Young attempted to act as a "peacemaker ... atempting to obtain a peaceful settlement" (WU Roberts papers D 277) but earned Roberts mistrust. Not before Roberts offered Young and then Walsh the Presidency as he claimed he couldn't work with Glover. Young then became a member of the Alliance of Labour's Legislation Committee and seconded motions in favour of Glover becoming President and Croskery as Secretary. He also assisted with organisational motions setting up the new post Roberts Alliance.

Essentially most at the time agreed that the break down was a combination of Robert's hostility to Glover and Walsh's challenge over the minutes. Some regarded it as an over reaction and bad temper on the part of Roberts. In hindsight this can be viewed as part of a strategy by Walsh and his allies to take over the Alliance, but at the time personalities were to the fore. Young remained in support of Walsh and Glover, although Roberts later retracted the "hard things' he had said to Young. Nevertheless their formerly close relationship was over. Roberts continued to feel "treated with abuse and slander" at the A.G.M. (D 239/3 letter of 9 April 1936) and that Walsh had stacked the meeting. Young was now part of the Walsh faction, and could even write accusing Walsh as having "got the toms" (WTU MS 2151/290 - letter 22/11/1936, Young to Walsh) over a woman.

The Auckland union had long preferred the Alliance of Labour to the reborn Auckland Trades and Labour Council, which had been reformed from 27 March 1929 (University of Auckland Library records D 30). Largely made up of Trades Hall based unions, that Council wound up on 10 June 1937, with any assets returning to its affiliates rather than to the new Auckland Trades Council. The new Auckland Trades Council was formed as a consequence of the new unity within the union movement as manifested in the new Federation of Labour. Young convened the first meeting as secretary of the Auckland district of the old Alliance of Labour, but the meeting was in fact chaired by F.P. Walsh's right hand man in Auckland, Tom Anderson of the Auckland seafarers' union. Young eventually won the Presidency of the Council by 62 to 43 for Tom Stanley. Stanley was a prominent Communist and secretary of the Auckland labourers' union from 1936. The first ballot had eliminated Jimmy Purtell, from the old Trades and Labour Council who had won just 16 votes in the first round. Most of Purtell's votes appear to have gone to Young in the second round. Similarly William (Bill) J. Cuthbert from the watersiders' union beat off Stanley for the Vice-Presidency by 60 to 53. All this was reported by Young to "Jack" Walsh in Wellington (WTU MS 2151/289), with Young claiming the "comrats" could call upon around 50 votes at Council meetings.

The Auckland hotelworkers' union had 6 delegates. on the new Auckland Trades Council, and 7 on the Auckland LRC. In 1936 Young also became secretary of the small Auckland dental mechanics' union.

At the next Trades Council election on 27 October 1937 Young beat off Stanley by 7 to 42. Interestingly Young's old friend Tom Long ran against him as well, but won only 10 votes. Another candidate W.J. Moore won 4. Young had similar victories on 16 February 1939 winning by 62 to 54, 93 to 44 on 10 April 1940 and 74 to 40 on 23 April 1941. He stood down in 1942 and in the same year stood down from the executive of the Auckland LRC. However, despite claims by Lee and others that Young dominated the Auckland Trades Council over nearly 5 years the reality was different. Much of the business of the Council was taken up with administrative matters and sorting out particular industrial disputes, and Young's attendance as President was variable at the least. From the initial meeting to that of 20 July 1939, including executive and special and general meetings, he attended 45 out of 67 meetings. From 15 August 1939 to 6 Match 1940 he attended 8 out of 18 meetings. For 1 April 1940 to 31 March 1941 he attended only 8 out of 15 executive meetings, but improved a liitle for the 22 April 1941 to 9 September 1941 when he attended 12 out of 16 meetings. Minutes for the Council are missing for the period between 9 September 1941 and 8 April 1943. There is also no record of any degree of attendance by him after April 1943 until his death in 1962. He wasn't even a candidate in the 1948 rejection of Communist Party dominance of the Council. Nevertheless the Council recorded on 15 February 1962 acknowledgement of his "sterling services rendered to the Movement over a long number of years".

From the 1935 General Election to 1938 Young played a relatively minor role on the Auckland Labour Representation Committee, again contrary to the point of view put forward by John A. Lee and others. He continued to serve to 1937 on the executive, as a trustee, and on the executive of the associated Auckland Labour Club, but didn't serve for the 1937 - 1938 term. He was not part of the Labour ticket for the Auckland Hospital Board in the 1938 elections, and didn't attend a 28 February 1938 meeting to formulate Party policy for the Board. An ommission one may think given the number of his union's members employed by the Board.

Nevertheless he returned to the executive in March 1938, and was nominated for vice-president. In the May 1938 local body electtions Labour went down from 15 to 8 Councillors, with both sitting Labour Councillors Ted Phelan and Arthur Rosser denied re-nomination. Young stood for the Auckland City Council this time, but was again unsuccessful. He was re-elected to the executive in 1939, but often gave apologies for non-attendance. He finally became vice-president for the 1941 - 1942 term, but after that no longer nominated for the executive. The last effective action by him on the executive was to chair a meeting in the president's absence on 25 May 1941.

Nevertheless he had earlier in 1941 become Labour's Municipal Election Organiser and in May promoted his roles as President of the Auckland Trades Council and Vice-President of the Auckland LRC when standing for both the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Hospital Board, again unsuccessfully. In fact Labour representation on the Auckland City Council fell to just 1 Councillor in May 1941, Mary Dreaver, under his leadership. He had also gotten into a row with A.J. Moody, the chair of the Auckland Hospital Board whom he had initially supported (NZ Observer, 21 May 1941, p 7). In 1944 he again stood for both local bodies, and was yet again unsuccessful. There is no record that he was ever successfully elected to any local authority.

In 1938 the FHWU conference was held in Auckland, at Hancock's Hotel Auckland. Davis was invited to speak and described Young as "a man of outstanding ability ... a practical man who took a fair view of things" (1938 FHWU Conference report). This hadn't stopped Young at the 1936 FHWU conference urging attendees to support the "left wing faction". He also claimed that he had threatening liquor industry employers with urging the Labour government to nationalise the liquor trade if he didn't get what the FHWU wanted in Award negotiations. It is very unlikely that he actually wanted this to happen. In 1938 Young was also urging that "the Licensed Victuallers, Wholesalers, and the hotel workers ... get down to tin tacks regarding their political policy" (1938 FHWU conference report). In 1939 Young oposed a Communist Party inspired beer boycott which would have affected the jobs of his members, and was again accused of being too close to the breweries.

Young had earlier sponsored raffles for the Auckland union's benevolent fund, formed in June 1932, and later in the 1930's began a magazine called "Flashlight" with Labour Party officials as featured guest writers and liquor industry advertsing. Nevertheless, Young's tendency to ad hominem attacks soon came to the fore when he attacked a Mr Goldberg, who worked as a publicist for the National Party. "Like many of his race ... (he) ... fattens on publicity, no doubt due to the Oriental in him ... (this) Hebrew gent ... (was) ... not to be tolerated in any ghetto"" (Flashlight, 10 February 1939). One wonders what Jewish members of Young's own union thought of these obviously anti-Semitic remarks?

In his history of the Canterbury hotel workers' union in "Class at the margins" (1985) Stephen Ferguson claims "Young emerged as one of the five most powerful union leaders of the era of the Labour government and proved himself to be a skilled, ruthless and ambitious leader" (p 123). He also maintained a close relationship with Fintan Patrick Walsh, which gave him further leverage within the Labour movement. From 1932 to 1936 Young was supervisng both the Taranaki and Wellington unions and Brooks the South Island unions with a view to eventual amalgamation after 1936. The industrial relations legislation was changed in 1936 to encourage the formation of national unions rather than federations of district based unions. Walsh certainly helped Young strengthen the union on his home turf in Wellington, but more in the late 1930's.

Young himself confessed to having a "very agressive and dogmatic manner" (1939 FHWU conference report), but also described John A. Lee as "ambitious and unscrupulous". He also confirmed that taking over the Bank of New Zealand as Lee and others urged was not the "end of all things" and would be inflationary if there was nothing done about the price mechanism. Following Lee's censure and loss of his portfolio in 1939, Young reported that he hoped there was "no recurrence of this sort of thing" from Lee. Ferguson claims that Young and Lee "both were determined and ambitious individuals who disliked the methods and views expounded by the other and neither was prepared to surrender a centimetre of ground to the other. Lee saw Young as a corrupt and ambitious official motivated by a desire for power and not by principle" (p 129). Also, "to Young, Lee was a dangerous egotist whose views and actions threatened the Party and who gathered support from 'trouble making Communists, place seekers and money cranks" (p 130).

Young was eager to expell Lee from the Labour Party, and was given the opportunity soon enough. At the 11 January 1940 special executive meeting of the Auckland L.R.C. Young proposed a motion, supposedly drafted by Walsh, to censure Lee for his attack on Prime Minister Savage in his "Psychopathology in politics" article in 'Tomorrow". The text included asking the LRC to express its "complete and emphatic disapproval" of Lee for his "disgraceful breach of Party of loyalty" with Lee "deserving of the severest censure and condemnation" (AU - Auckland LRC Minutes, A 65). This didn't however call for Lee's expulsion and Lee retained sufficent support to have this motion lost. The full meeting of the Auckland LRC instead supported a motion actually supporting his article and drive for socialism, while expressing every confidence in Savage, by 109 to 85. Despite this setback Young was soon after re-elected onto the LRC executive and the resolution itself was later rescinded by the LRC in June 1940.

Later at the 1940 Labour Party conference the FHWU block voted their 40 votes with 506 others to defeat and expel Lee. Lee won 344 votes. Young regarded Lee's "exit from the Party ... (as providing) a wonderful opportunity of getting rid of elements within the Party which we have all known (it) would be better without" (Flashlight 3 September 1940 p21). He also wanted prompt action against "those who declined to accept Party discipline" (ibid). Young had now shown his loyalty to the Party hierarchy and the angry outburts of 1935 were forgotten.

Young also figured amongst those regarded as "union bosses" (New Zealand Observer 28 May 1941 page 11). He was bracketed with F.P. Walsh, Jim Roberts, Cook and Eddy (both from the workers' union), while others may have added Angus McLagan from the miners' union and Colonel Pharazyn from the clerical workers' union. All were leaders of large unions, all were extremely supportive of the Labour Party leadership and all were authoritarian in style. At least he wasn't featured in "Our gangsters; an open letter to all in the labour movement" by J.A. Collins (Tomorrow, 8 November 1939, page 14 - 15. This was a thinly veiled attack on F.P. Walsh and his dominant group on the Wellington Trades Council of "trade union secretaries who keep their positions by gangster methods" (page 14).

Young's involvement in the war effort increased. There were no more industry Awards negotiated after 1940 until 1945, with a reliance instead on General Wage Orders. At first Young was with most others a member of the Home Guard, and to May 1941 was Chairman of the Food and Liquor Group of the Fighting Forces Fund. He and Brooks were both members of the Industrial Emergency Council advising the Minister of Labour on extensions of hours of work and so forth. and in September 1940 they attended the Economic Stabilisation Conference. This was part of Labour's policy to achieve a national wage and price strategy, or stabilisation of wages and prices.

In June 1941 Young became a member of the Supply Council, and from 8 September 1941 was appointed to the Legislative Council to add to the Labour voice there. His attendance on the Auckland Trades Council and Auckland LRC executive tapered off even more. While not a Member of Parliament, a Legislative Councillor certainly had status and the title of Honourable. During the war the duty on beer increased markedly, but was regarded as a non-essential industry. Ferguson views this period as a combination of Labour government state control and union self discipline to ensure "Stabilisation" (p 134). This corporatist model survived into the post war period.

On 25 January 1943 Young asked the Auckland executive if he could resign as Auckland secretary due to pressure of work from the Supply Council, the Industrial Emergency Council and the Legislative Council. The executive only agreed that organiser Percy Ansell could take over some of his duties. Young also unsuccessfully tried to resign from the secretaryship of the FHWU on 5 Match 1943. The leadership of the union obviously regarded his continued secretaryships as essential for the FHWU, and in 1946 some hotelworkers' union officers supported him for president of the Federation of Labour. In fact he received few votes when he tried to succeed Angus McLagan. He had previously served as chair of the Auckland Trades Council and ex officio on the National Council of the Federation of Labour. He also continued to serve on the Legislative Council but said little there. Nevertheless he did attend Labour Party caucus meetings.

Ferguson claims there was a power struggle within the FHWU in the early 1940's. He says that the Canterbury union believed Young was no longer interested in policy issues and rather was more interested in the Federation of Labour and his role in government. This was manifested in delays in correspondence and circulars and claimed dilatoriness over the 1940 hospital board Award. While Young was "undoubtedly an able negotiator and possessed of a certain dynamism and charisma his commitment to the interests of his members was less than complete" (p 139). Brooks thought Young mismanaged things and that Young regarded Award negotiations as "an amusing power game incidental to his wider political and personal ambitions" (p 140). Brooks and other claimed that Young regarded the FHWU as merely a power base , criticised his "expensive lifestyle" (p140) and a lack of dedication. Brook apparently confronted Young on this in 1938 and 1940 and in March 1942 complained to his Canterbury executive about Young's supposed inattention, lack of initiative and high financial cost to the FHWU from his secretarial payments. Unfortunately none of the records of the Canterbury union have survived since that thesis was written to confirm this.

Later in that year Young supported the Licensed Victuallers' Association when they criticised the Labour government over rises in the tax on beer. Brooks opposed any criticism of Labour and in October 1942 publicly disassociated the Canterbury union from Young's remarks. Brooks and Young also fell out over a wage rise in the chartered clubs sector, with Young and the Labour Department both claiming that it wasn't allowed under the Regulations and Brooks arguing that it was. As almost the final straw in December 1942 Brooks opposed Young's involving the union in running an Auckland waterfront catering company. However Auckland and Young had the voting numbers within the FHWU and while at times Wellington and Otago were also critical of Young they were also more prepared to go along with things as they were. Brooks also had a period of illness at this time and the discontent remained unresolved. It resurfaced briefly in December 1945 when an amendment to the Shops and Offices Act excluded hotels and restaurants from the 40 hour week. Canterbury claimed that Young hadn't followed this up, but Young then lobbied to have those sectors included from October 1946.

In 1939 Young supported a "co-operative movement" owning and operating some hotels, with shares offered to union members only, and to the 11 March 1941 Auckland executive he recommended there should be a "co-operative society to run licensed hotels".

When speaking in the Legislative Council Young was quick to defend the breweries against those he regarded as "wowsers", also arguing they didn't "hide their profits" (NZPD 1942 p 347). He also publicly regarded any moves towards state control of the liquor industry as "a bogy" and "a dead issue" (NZPD, 1944 p 246), and opposed the holding of a Royal Commission on the industry. In the same 1944 debate in the Legislative Council, over the Invercargill Licensing Trust Bill, he supported municipal ownership of hotels with a Crown Company loaning money for that purpose. These would act in competition with the established liquor trade. He also opposed "tied houses" and gave an example from Hikurangi, one of seven hotel licenses he claimed to have held, where he was required as manager to only stock the company brand of beer and only those spirit brands that company imported. The Invercargill Licensing Trust was the start of a new way of operating liquor outlets and its example was soon followed elsewhere in New Zealand.

Nevertheless a Royal Commission went ahead from January 1945, and with Young as one of the commissioners. After 18 months of hearings etc in August 1946 the Royal Commission on Licensing reported back to Parliament, with wide ranging recommendations concerning the future of the liquor trade. It was forbidden from looking into overtly political matters, particularly contributions to political parties by the trade (Bollinger, Conrad - Grog's own country, Minerva, 1967). In essence it recommended a Liquor Licenses Distribution Commission, independent Licensing Committees, local Licensing Trusts who could take over the provision of liquor in particular areas, a Liquor Manufacture and Supply Board to take over the breweries and a Liquor Trade Inspection and Advisory Board to oversee the industry. Effectively as the various Commissions and Boards included government appointees this was nationalisation of the breweries.

However, while the Otago and Auckland Trades Councils, the Otago LRC, the Auckland watersiders' union and the Federation of Labour all supported extended hours for hotels and either state or at least public control of the breweries, one Labour Party and Federation of Labour affiliate didn't. The hotelworkers' union had 7,169 members in licensed hotels at the time and called for regulation rather than the imposition of a state monopoly. The FHWU was represented by its Wellington secretary Frank O'Sullivan, who was acting FHWU secretary while Young was sitting on the Commission. O'Sullivan argued that industrial relations in the industry was "most cordial" (p7142 of the notes of proceedings) and that since 1931 there had been "at least ten Dominion Awards ... and in each case the Award has been a complete agreement between the parties concerned and the Arbitration Court has not had the privilege of writing one word of it".

Young himself offered a minority report to the Royal Commission as "the proposed sweeping elimination of private enterprise and the substitution of a huge corporate control scheme savours more of a plan for a new totalitarian State rather than for the freedom loving people of this country". He also said "if reforms calculated to reasonably satisfy public opinion and to give to the community the services to which they are entitled can be achieved within the existing framework, what possible justification exists for the creation of a State monopoly, which completely eliminates even a vestige of competition".

When the Commission report was tabled in Parliament, the National Party M.P. F.W. Doidge said of Young's reaction to the nationalisation proposal: "The Hon. Mr Young is horrified at the suggestion, and says it savours more of a plan for a new totalitarian state than for a freedom loving people. That shows how the saner Labour leaders are revolting from the policy enunciated by the Minister in charge of the Budget" (NZPD, 1946, p633). The Budget included a proposal to nationalise the coal mining industry. British Labour at the same time had a virtual "shopping list" of industries it wished to nationalise, including the steel and long distance trucking industries. The New Zealand Communist Party further claimed that while Young was using his own words he was conveying the sentiments of the breweries (Peoples Voice 11 September 1946). The 'Dominion" headed its article on his response as merely "Union officer finds report unacceptable" (Dominion 4 September 1946 page 8) and the following day editorialised that many would endorse his views.

It is said that Young adopted this view in order to satisfy his brewery "mates" and that as a reward his "mistress" obtained a hotel license from Hancock's for the Rob Roy Hotel in Franklin Road. More recently this is known as the "Bird Cage". Firstly Young had long opposed nationalisation and only for the 1950's can it be confirmed that the license was held by a Mrs Ivy Maud Young. She was in fact married to Charles Maxwell Young, born in 1884 and a salesman living in Orakei. She and he lived at 142 Orakei Road from the 1920's until 1953, and she was still listed there in 1956, at least from Council and central electoral rolls. Charles Maxwell Young died at Leigh on 13 May 1964 aged 80, and his death notice still acknowledges him as the husband of Ivy, while Ivy died 10 November 1973 and her death notice acknowledges that she was the widow of Charles Maxwell Young. They appear to have had no children. Ivy is nevertheless included in Fred Young's 1962 death notice, and not his wife Emily. Ivy was also the executor of Fred Young's will. They were likely together from the late 1930's.

The 1954 supplementary electoral roll for Roskill has Frederick George and Ivy Maude now at the same address at 21 Hendry Road in Hillsborough. Back in 1941 only Cecil Francis was listed on the Newmarket Borough roll at 1 Castlereigh Flats in Sarawia Street, but his mother Emily was still renting the flat in 1963. Thus, while Ivy Young was eventually the licensee of the "Rob Roy", an immediate pay off for services rendered at the Royal Commission is unproven. It should also be noted that it is very likely that the politics of the time made Prime Minister Peter Fraser back off from such a controversial change to the liquor industry, which was of course opposed by the breweries. The appointment of a known Labour opponent to the Commission seems to have sealed its fate from the outset, and the 1948 legislation diverted siginifcantly from changes recommended in the Commission' report. At the 1946 general election the state purchase and control option favoured by the majority report of the Commission gained only 20.2% of the total vote. While supporting improvements in quality of service and extended hours, Young's opposition to changes in ownership appears to have caught the public mood.

Young continued to support monetary reform, and welcomed the nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand. On 1 April 1947 the Auckland executive passed a remit to the 1947 Labour Party conference in the rather confusing language of credit reformers of the time calling for "credit and currency controls" to be linked to the "internal price level". The amount of money circulating was to somehow match the value of goods and services. This was the language of Labour Party MPs such as Frank Langstone, who later joined the Social Credit Political League. It was also the language of Sir Henry Kelliher who in 1959 was still promoting a Stable Money Bill. Kelliher wanted the Consumers Price Index to be used to determine what was the current "internal price level" and to allow the Reserve Bank to ensure there was only sufficient money circulating to buy goods and services, and to finance national development schemes. Young had supported Kelliher's ideas since the mid 1940's and got Party permission to circulate one of Kelliher's pamphlets within the Labour Party. He was then accused by the Leader of the Opposition Sid Holland for wanting to make "heads roll" (Dominion 14 November 1944) if nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand didn't ocur. He also later claimed that F.P. Walsh also supported such notions (Young - Kelliher correspondence, 1959, SFWU records). This was most unlikely and it would seem that Young heard only what he wanted to hear.

Young's expertise in business and finance was more at the micro level, rather than the macro level of financial policy. The National Party M.P. F.W. Doidge described Young in September 1946 as follows: "I understand he is a wealthy man, he owns good racehorses, and has considerable ability" (NZPD, 1946, p 633). He also regarded himself as being at odds with the more left wing within the labour movement. In the 1947 FHWU conference Young claimed that it was a case of the "Coms" against the rest at the Federation of Labour conference, while "Reds" were obvious at the Labour Party conference. Young also pointed to dangers from "evangelist type Ministers of Religion who turned their back on the Lord and became Ministers of the Crown", an obvious hit at the Minister of Indistries and Commerce from May 1947, Arnold Nordmeyer. Nordmeyer continued to be a Young target, as Young regarded him as a "wowser". Nash was another likely contender.

During the Gaming Poll Bill debate in the Legislative Council, to which he was re-appointed from 22 September 1948, Young's love of horse racing became apparent. He described himself as a "regular attender on the racecourse" (NZPD, 1948, p 2858) and also supported the legalisation of bookmaking. In 1950 he claimed in the Legislative Council that he had been part of the "New Zealand Turf Investors' Association" which had promoted legal off course betting. He then even claimed that he had bet 1,000 Pounds for a day of "credit betting" with an open cheque", if true a very sizeable sum for that time. When visiting Wellington on Federation business he also on occasion visited the races. Sir Ernest Davis and F.P. Walsh were also a racing fans, and they both had interests in the same horse.

In the Legislative Council Young firmly supported the 1948 National Industrial Conference, but the 16 June 1948 FHWU conference report saw Young describe the recent liquor price order as "dastardly" insufficient, with no prior government consultation with the Licensed Victuallers' Association. At the 20 March 1950 FHWU conference Young called for unity between the political and industrial wings of the Labour movement, while criticising Labour's "mania for Regulations" and called for the abolition of price controls and more wine and spirit licenses. In fact after 1949 the new National government took off many price controls and the Federation of Labour won a 15% general wage order from the Arbitration Court.

While a member of the Legislative Council Young attended Labour caucus meetings, but following Labour's loss at the 1949 election, he began to follow an independent path. On 18 April 1950 he joined the walk out from the Federation of Labour conference with the watersiders' union and others and was asked to chair their consequent meeting. At the conference he had supported allowing the watersiders' union a "clean slate" over its 17 March 1949 letter "insulting" the Federation for supporting the de-registration of the Auckland carpenter's union. The 18 April Federation of Labour conference called on the watersiders' union to withdraw that letter and this was refused. At the break away meeting Young confirmed the need for unity in the union movement but also argued there was a "lot wrong" in the adminstration of the Federation of Labour (WTU - Trade Union Congress Minute Book 94-106-07/12). While claiming not to be taking sides, he opposed "interference" in the activites of the watersiders' union by the Federation leadership, claimed the dispute could have been avoided, and that he couldn't "stand aside and see the watersiders expelled, particularly on the score of a dispute resurrected for that purpose after a period of 12 months". He also claimed the Federation was stopping "practical militancy". Others claimed that the Federation was too prepared to put the interests of the Labour Party ahead of their own industrial interests.

His attempt at conciliation with the Federation, along with S. Giles of the freezing workers' and John Roberts of the clothing workers', received a poor reception and at 11.30 a.m. the following morning their placatory letter was delivered to the Federation of Labour conference. Young then needed to attend concilation talks and was elected interim chair in absentia of the break away group, as well as to their draft constitutional committee. Back in Auckland he gave his apologies to a 11 May 1950 meeting of what had become the Trade Union Congress (TUC), but did warn them over the text of a proposed pamphlet and more generally about the hostility they were likely to receive from the Federation of Labour leadership. He continued to stress the 19 April letter provided the basis for a reconciliation, but the TUC was now determined on a separatist path. To shore up support for the Federation of Labour a "Federation" ticket successfully ran for the leadership of the Auckland Trades Council, but without obvious support from the AHWU.

His becoming the interim chair of the rival Trade Union Congress (TUC) was endorsed on 2 May 1950 by the Auckland executive, despite the FHWU previously opting for a neutral stance on the conflict between the Federation of Labour leadership and the watersiders' union and their supporters. Canterbury and soon after Wellington also opposed his involvement with the TUC, but Young avoided censure at the 16 May 1950 FHWU Conference. Neverthless he was given a 1 June 1950 deadline to formally withdraw from the TUC, or be dismissed as FHWU Secretary. He had already sent his apologies to the 22 May 1950 TUC supporters meeting but was still invited to speak at a TUC rally in Carlaw Park. It is unclear whether he actually spoke at that rally, but he was still sending out press releases as Chairman of the Congress in late May. One specifically over plans to demonstrate on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne (Auckland Star, 25 May 1950, page 4).

He also still talked of going as an observer to their 9 August 1950 inaugural conference. He later claimed he supported the TUC in its initial stages because of the inadequacy fo the Federation of Labour wage order, while confirming his preference for one organisation for all unionists and that he had tried to get the two groups back together again. Brooks and others just didn't believe him. Likely he was trying to play both sides, but ultimately believed the TUC was heading towards certain defeat and distanced himself.

A much later version of his level of support for the TUC is worth quoting in full. "I was never a member of the Congress and never took any step to induce any union to withdraw from the Federation of Labour. What I did do was to attend a meeting in the Trades Hall immediately after the walk - out and was asked by delegates who walked out to take the chair, where I used my best influence to avoid a split, had the proposal endorsed that there was not room for two national trade union organisations in the country; and further I got the meeting to endorse a resolution authorising that a letter be sent to the secretary of the Federation of Labour conference which was still sitting, requesting that they receive a deputation with a view to patching up the quarrel. The proposal was not acceptable to the Federation of Labour and that terminated my association with those who walked out of the Federation of Labour conference" (Standard, 19 February 1959, p1). The facts say otherwise.

Ferguson regards this involvement with the TUC as an attempt by Young to assert himself within the Federation of Labour. However, that would have only worked if the breakaway group had returned under his leadership, a very unlikely prospect. Also, up until then Young had had a good working relationship with Walsh, who was the main opponent of Barnes and the watersiders' union leadership. Not long after in 1952 and 1953 Walsh was brought in to advocate for the licensed hotel's Award where the employers were trying to remove a service allowance and allow for part timers. This had lead to Auckland area stopwork meetings in 1952. If 1950 had been an anti-Walsh power play then Walsh was quick to forgive - a trait Walsh normally lacked. More likely Young miscalculated both his mediation skills and the depth of the split. In 1955 Young wrote to Walsh "I have not seen you for long while and hope you are keeping well" (WTU MS 20/47/1 - letter of 2/9/1955).

Young's more independent path was also demonstrated in the Legislative Council in 1950. He put much effort into his unsuccessful opposition to the abolition of the Council and suddenly from rarely contributing to the debate became most eloquent. Describing himself as a "defender of private enterprise" (NZPD, 1950, p 1021), he also described the first Labour government as providing "14 years of benevolent capitalism" (ibid). He echoed other commentators that in 1949 voters had demonstrated they were "sick of privations and of rationing" (NZPD, 1950, p 1022) and believed that a fresh National government might do better. He maintained his support for import licensing to ensure only "essential" (p1023) goods were imported. No doubt spirits were included in the "essential", given his later reaction in 1958. Nevertheless he remained with Labour, and is claimed to have tried to induce his arch foe of former times John A.Lee, and fellow currency reformer Frank Langstone, back into the Party.

At the 26 February 1951 Quarterly membership meeting of the Auckland union Young offered "moral and practical support" to the watersiders' union. He later claimed to have given personal assitance to the wives and children of watersiders who were locked out, an illegal act under the 1951 regulations. Earlier in the Legislative Council he had noted that "relations between the waterside workers' organisation and the (Labour) government is not as good as it should be" (NZPD, 1948, p 1281), but that the state shouldn't dictate who unionists chose as their leaders. He had also described watersiders' pay as "inadequate" (p 1023) and conditions as "deplorable" (p1023). He also assisted with attempting to bring a compromise solution to the lock out, but in many ways his hands were tied to do anything more to ameliorate the police state New Zealand became during the 151 days lock out.

Nevertheless Young was most prescient when it came to identifying the real issues. In early March 1951 he wrote a 2 page analysis of "The Waterside Dispute" (WTU MS 2151/267). He knew the wharfies' wage struggle with the ship owners in what could have been a "well directed militant action" had been lost in the anti-Red propaganda put out by both the government and the Federation of Labour. He predicted the wharfies would lose, as they were regarded by the public as Communist pawns, there was a publicly perceived threat to the national security and their actions were seen as selfish. He recommended the wharfies unload coal and essential foodstuffs at their old rate and work with all unionists to refocus the fight back to the shipowners and not with the public. The wharfies were a "force for the advancement of free trade unionism" and had been out manipulated

At the 1955 FHWU conference Young boasted of support he had received from Auckland Licensed Victuallers' Association members in getting out the vote for the 1954 General Election. He claimed an arrangement with Association members to ensure that all hotel staff voted, and that they were escorted to the booths by either their employer or a hotelworkers' union delegate. The employers side hoped they would vote for "continuance" while the union hoped they would vote for Labour. The Association provided 8 cars for this purpose. This appears similar to assistance given by Davis in at least the early 1930's, and in 1957 he claimed similar support from Association members. The 3 July 1957 circular gives almost a "nudge nudge wink wink" impression when it came to where he believed the Association's real political loyalties lay.

Young and Ivy had moved into the marginal Roskill electorate in early 1954 and both joined the Roskill - Epsom Branch. Young soon became an excutive member of the Branch, a delegate to the Auckland LRC and at the 1954 General Election was the Roskill electorate organiser. He also became Chairman of the Inter-Branch Council of the Roskill Labour Party and the Roskill electorate representative on the Auckland L.R.C. Central Campaign Committee (Auckland LRC records, A 65, Box 10).

In April 1956 he averted a revolt from some members who called a special meeting to remove him as secretary over a pamphlet his president had sent out. He could still rely on the support of rank and file members of his union. Intimidation of those who opposed him was encouraged by having open votes rather than secret ballots.

The arrival of the second Labour government in 1957 soon led to a major dispute between him and the Labour Party. In a letter to Prime Minister Walter Nash of 22 December 1958 he described "three vicious attacks on the liquor trade". The first was a 60% cut in the imports of spirits, the 1958 Budget's doubling of excise tax on alcohol and the insufficient increase in the price of beer by the Price Tribunal from 9 July 1958.

In January 1958 he had written to new Prime Minister Walter Nash condemning the 60% cut as "a drastic and unwarranted attack on the wage worker" and signed it "Yours disgustingly". The letter was leaked to the press and Young was unanimously censured and apologised. He even admitted that he had suffered the most out of the whole episode, whilet Nash wasn't unduly worried about the whole thing. The FHWU formally disassociated itself from the tone of Young's letter, but the 6 March 1958 Quarterly meeting of Auckland members still supported Young 60 to 8. Similarly the Auckland L.R.C. on 27 February 1958 also condemned his actions and noted that he had already resigned from the L.R.C. executive as a consequence. Later Young was to urge that the Labour Party "get rid of Walter (Nash)" ( WTU MS 2151/296 - letter to Walsh of 21/7/1959).

At the 1959 FHWU conference Young bemoaned the lack of a "stabilsation" policy, harking back to supposed golden years of the 1940's, and pointing to continued price rises and consequent Federation of Labour Arbitration Court applications for general wage orders. As earlier while the Federation of Labour opposed beer price rises, both the hotelworkers' union and the Licensed Victuallers' Association supported higher increases. The Federation of Labour also supported additional hours of opening for hotels, a matter opposed by the hotelworkers' unions. Young claimed that the Labour government was "notorious for its anti-liquor legislation", complained about not having a union nominee on the Tourist Hotel Corporation and delays in setting up a local gin factory. The liquor trade was apparently "going broke" because capped prices for beer. Both his son and "Mrs Young" were hotel licensees and Young made many submissions to various Ministers supporting the interests of licensees. It was almost as if he was a more active advocate for the interests of hoteliers than the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Cecil was later secretary of the Thames Valley Branch of the Association.

Complaints about the Tourist Hotel Corporation nominations continued at the National Council meeting 16 to 18 February 1960, and it wasn't until October 1960 that Young himself was finally included as a director. This was something he had been angling for for sometime but time allowed him only less than 17 months on the Corporation. The Corporation had been formed in 1955. Young had long taken a wide view of the hospitality industry and during the course of the 1945 licensing commission had argued for better standards.

In 1960 he had spent 25 years on the Government Tourism Advisory Committee and was also a director of the New Zealand Travel and Holiday Association. The latter being formed in 1953. In 1946 Young had raised the need for better training for chefs and in 1957 he inaugurated a chef training scheme through the National Chef's Association. Acording to Margaret McClure in her "The wonder country; making New Zealand tourism" (Auckland University Press, 2004, page 178) he long lamented the standard of cuisine and even urged "Aunt Daisy's Cook Book" be used to improve the quality of the cooking. The hospitality industry also found irksome the 40 hour week and high overtime rates, and claimed that staff considered service equated with servility.

The 16 February 1960 Auckland union's quarterly meeting was told that the attitude of the union was "to do nothing" over the Federation of Labour appeal to pay for the Neary versus Walsh Court costs. Young had already told the FHWU meeting of 8 December 1859 that no union funds would go to pay libel damages. Young then indulged in sleight of hand to send off 500 Pounds from FHWU funds, and then seek permission for 500 Pounds, actually another 500 Pounds, to be sent to the Wellington Trades Council Young also acted as a go between with F.P. Walsh and Sir Ernest Davis for additional "cash" (letter FP Walsh to FG Young 13 May 1960, SFWU records). The March 1961 FHWU conference retrospectively endorsed the now 1,000 Pounds, but said this should not happen again without a special meeting. This whole episode is fully developed in Graeme Hunt's "Black Prince" (pages 186 - 187). Davis also provided 3,000 Pounds of his own money to assist Walsh over the libel damages (WTU MS 2151/296 - letter of 13/4/1960).

Election day was 26 November 1960, and saw a heavy Labour loss which Young later blamed on Nordmeyer. In 1961 the FHWU formally disaffiliated from the Labour Party. Nevertheless, Young continued to enjoy "excellent relations with the Auckland Hotel Association (FHWU conference 22 - 29 March 1961). Following a "domestic" row within the union which saw the temporary resignation of the assistant secretary since 1948 George Armstrong, on 9 August 1961 a special Auckland executive meeting voted five to four to dimiss him, while keeping him on as an advisor. Allegations included Young spending too much time assisting with the running of the Rob Roy Hotel, and the fact that the President of the Auckland union was also the manager there. Previously "Mrs Young" had been paid for work done for the union. Despite this Young maintained his support amongst the more active union membership and a meeting of over 600 on 15 August 1961 overwhelmingly passed a vote of confidence in him. Walsh wanted to come to Auckland to personally support Young.

On 14 February 1962 Young was attending a meeting of the Tourist Hotel Corporation at the Government Life Building in Wellington. At first he was believed to have had a fall, although it has been suggested by some including Jim Knox that he was in fact "murdered". Quite why he needed to have been "murdered" is not really apparent. At the post mortem the coroner put the death down to a "subarachnoid haemourrhage due to rupture of an aneurysm of the circle of Willis" and decided not hold a full inquest. Young's body was shipped to Auckland and his well attended funeral was on 17 February 1962. Walsh cried at the funeral and then visited the family at home in Hillsborough with Tom Skinner, then Vice-President of the Federation of Labour. Young was then cremated at Waikumete, as was later Ivy. Ivy Maud and not his still legal wife Emily became the executrix of his will (Archives N.Z. Auckland BBAE 1570 590/62), and his sole beneficiary. Cecil (listed as the licensee of the Britomart Hotel) was only to inherit if Ivy died before probate. The will had been written on 21 June 1956 and probated 20 March 1962. It may well be that Emily had already received a financial settlement during his lifetime. An Emily Young was cremated at Purewa on 8 July 1980.

In an eulogy the FHWU described him as "a hard man to know but a very fair one". The official history of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand, which grew out of the old Licensed Victuallers' Association described him as having "a colourful personality" who "continued an excellent support with the Association" as a "pragmatist" (Brien, Bill - 100 years of hospitality in New Zealand 1902 - 2002, Wellington Museums Trust, 2003, p 48). He was succeeded as Auckland and national secretary by George Armstrong who maintained the policies of the union as a conservative force in the labour movement. Armstrong didn't have the public presence of Young and died 28 September 1973. The conservative regime continued on into the mid 1980's when amalgamation with the cleaners' and other unions, and a change of leadership, formed the new and more progressive Service Workers' Union.

The Federation of Labour at its 25th Annual Conference in 1962 paid tribute to Young, with Walsh himself "making special mention of (his) passing ... (and his) long and valuable service to the Trade Union movement in general and the Hotel Workers in particular, and who had played a prominent part in the previous conferences of the Federation of Labour" (page 80). It should be noted that Young (and Mrs Young) had attended the 1952 Federation of Labour conference, but not the 1953 or 1958 conferences. They had attended every conference from 1959 to 1961.

Ferguson says that "up until his death in 1962, Frederick Young continued to dominate the FHWU as both the secretary of the largest affiliate the AHWU, and of the HWF itself. Young's formidable negotiating skills and knowledge of the industry made him a prime weapon in the union's tactical armoury. He remained unchallenged as secretary of the HWF and while still an important figure within the FOL he no longer possessed the power and influence that he had held in the years of the first Labour government. Young enjoyed his last years of power before his death, but was no longer striving to meet any personal or political challenges" (p 222-3). It should be noted that he lobbied hard to join the Tourist Hotel Corporation and play a wider role in developing the tourism industry.

Copyright: David Verran, 2006.