TRAMWAY CONCILIATION BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 170, 17 July 1908, Page 2

TRAMWAY CONCILIATION BOARD.

YESTERDAY. EVIDEXCE FOR THE COMPANY. The sittings of the special Conciliation Board to inquire into the Tramway dispute were continued yesterday afternoon. The Board comprises Dr. McArthur (president), Messrs. P. M. Hansen, Morris (for the Company), Carter and Sherry (for the Union). Mr. A. Rosser appeared for the Union, and the Company was represented by Mr. Walklate. MR HANSEN IN THE BOX. Paul M. Hansen, local director of the Company, also gave evidence, after we vent to press yesterday. Referring to Motorman Mills' case, he was positive that Mills' report was not added to in any way. He suggested that Mr Lysaght's report, containing further particulars, immediately afterwards, was the probable explanation of this assumption. As to Mr Bassett. witness stated that he was employed as a private detective, and as such gave every satisfaction to the company. "'I consider," Mr Hansen went on to say, "and every tramway \ man will agree with mc, that some private inspection, that is, unexpected inspection, is absolutely necessary in a tramway service; but when it comes to disguised inspection, I have always been against it, and always will be, because it is unmanly and is not right. I might say that .Ihave been associated with Mr Lysaght for the last nine years, and have found him to be a most conscientious officer, and if he had not been told to go in for inspection methods such as those complained of, I know that he would not do it. He has never been asked to do it by mc, as I am strongly against it, and I am sure Mr Walklate has never asked him." Referring to the "round robin" incident, witness stated that he was approached by Mr Kidd on the matter, and dissented from it. Mr Kidd then informed him that it had been sent round in order to test the feeling j of the men. He was not aware who was j the originator of it. At the conference 1 in connection with the 1906 strike, wit-j ness promised that, in the event of any j man being charged with an offence in-1 volving dismissal, he should have the right to produce evidence if procurable. To Mr. Rosser: He was not aware that j during the- past two or three months 1 there had been a great clearing out of j I papers in the office. Mr. Rosser: Well, I am told that two ! inspectors have becu there arranging the ' papers into years, and destroying what j were of no use. Do you think that Mills' j second report could have been among the 1 latter number? Witness. Xo, that would be impossible, i There was no second report. Further questioned, witness stated that as far as he was aware, men had been given reasons for their dismissal since the I 1906 strike. Mr. Walklate stated that, with the exception of a few facts which he himself proposed to place before the Board', this would conclude his case. Mr. Rosser said that he had understood that Inspector McKay, of the Epsom do- I pot, who was ill, was to have been called by the Company. He submitted that it was essential that he should be call*!, as ' the evidence given by Mr. Lysaght and Inspector Etheridge threw the whole onus \ of engaging a lady detective on his shoul- i ders, and he thought that he should! be j afforded opportunity of giving an expia- I nation. j Mr. Walklate said he had intended to cal Mr. Mi Kay, and if he could attend the following day he would do so. The inquiry waa adjourned until 10 ' o'clock this morning. TO-DAY. t j The Board resumed at 10 o'clock this' morning. E. H. Morris, a member of the Board, ! re-entered the box, and, in reply to Mr Rosser, said that "working a double" on ■ a conductor did not necessarily imply' suspicion against a conductor. Two in-; spectors examining a car gave a true and j accurate idea of a man's capabilities. \ Andrew MacKay, chief inspector at the i Epsom depot, said he had been an inspec-' tor for 5* years. Prior to that he was I for six years in the Brisbane tramway! service. The Brisbane system of inspection was similar to "that in vogue here, but discipline was stricter. Witness treated conductors as fairly as ho could, and was satisfied with the treatment he received from the officials. To Mr Rosser: Witness had never been asked to get his friends to assist iv tripping conductors. Mr Lysaght had suggested to him that in suspicious eases he might get someone to mark a ticket. | Mr Rosser asked if a suggestion from a superior officer was not equivalent to an instruction, to which the witness replied "Yes, if yea like to take it so." Continuing, the witness said that in Conductor Spence's case, Inspector Etheredge came to witness and said that Spence had sold his wife a ticket which he (Ethcredge) had reason to suspect i was an old ticket. WitDess had known i Spence for a number of years, and con-1 sidered him an honest man. An argu-! ment arose between witness and Ether- '' edge, and witness said that to prove bis' words he would get a passenger to buy a ticket from Spenee's car, and he (Etheredge) could get the number, and would find that Spence wouM not pick it up. Witness had received instructions to "work doubles" in conjunction with other inspectors. That was only done in cases where reports of suspicions had been received. Witness did not consider it necessary to "plant" himself to check cars. Witness had known a case of three tickets bearing the same number, which showed that the numbering machine was not infallible. To Mr Morris: He did not regard the passenger who took the ticket in the Spence case as a female detective. Claude Martelli said he had been employed on the tramway service. He remembered a "Round Robin" being brought round to him by Mr Lysaght, who said that some of the men had a grievance against the foreman, and they had got up the "Round Robin" to give to Mr Kidd to bring matter to a head. Witness said he did not think that Mr Kidd had anything to do with the "Round Robin," as the latter brought it to witness and asked him what was the meaning of it. Mr Walklate then put in a number of documents, including a copy of the Inspectors' Rule Book, the petition forwarded by inspectors, and Mr Hansen's reply, newspaper cuttings regarding the recent strike and the 1906 strike, etc. Joseph John Walklate, general manager and attorney for the company, said he had been concerned in tramway management for over 22 years in various countries in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and had also studied tramways in the United States and in Canada. Regarding Herdson, he was discharged and offered a week's pay. ' He was informed that the company had '

no further use for him, The reason subsequently given was that he had been insolent to an inspector. Frier to that, his service had not been altogether good. In a service like the company's, it followed that if they had no further use for him they must put him off. That was a universal custom. It is not necessary for any reason, to be j assigned by either side, As regards the . payment of a. week's wages in lieu of . notice, that was a common proceeding. . It was equivalent to a week's notice. ; Regard checking, time-tables, it was ne--1 cessary to check the arrival and departure of cars from outside terminus. ( Whatever had come out in evidence he j took fall responsibility. It was necessary for him to take those steps to find out what he wanted, and he would continue to do so. He paid a high tribute to Mr Lysaght's services, and did not consider that he would be unfair. • To Mr Rosser: Witness regarded a dismissal, and a discharge as two dif- £ ferent things. In the case of a discharge a reason was not necessary. ; Did you give Herdson a reason?—Herdson was discharged, he was not dismis- [ sed. Continuing, the witness said there was some misunderstanding regarding Holden; but witness gave instructions for f him to receive a week's pay. He would take full responsibility for the methods adopted in checking time-tables. Witk ness remembered the deputation regard- } ing Inspector Tickle's tactics. He was x not satisfied that Inspector Tickle had j done the things attributed to him. It . would be foolish to stand,where he could I be seen. Witness believed that any I official wilfully making false reports should be immediately dismissed. Witj ness had received a good many refusals j from conductors and motonnen, who , had been offered inspectorships. ' To Mr Carter: All things being equal, , witness always gave the senior man pro- , motion. \ In his ad-dress to the Board, Mr Walky late contended that the evidence was , wholy insufficient to support the claims . advanced. The greater part related , to ancient histor;/. Times had since , ■ changed, and methods with them. The ! ; greater part of the evidence related to >j a time before either of the parties to . j the dispute were in existence, as an orj ganised body, and the people concerned ,lin it were dead. Surely it was.a weak- , ness on the part of the Union to go back PO far for evidence in support of I one of their demands. His actions had been governed by the award of the Aγ- ] bitration Court. So long as a man ] was capable and did his work conscij ontiously, he need not fear losing his ' job. Mr. Walklate said it was a duty he I owed to the company, but also to the I general public, that he should get only j ! the best men in the service. At times it happ?ncd that they got an unsuitable I man, and then, of course, he had to go. j Trouble with the company had been brewing ever since the last award of the - Arbitration Court That was early in j June last year, and dissatisfaction was expressed that the demand of the Union had not been granted by the Court, and from that time ouwfcrds they had had more or less trouble. The following month there was trouble over straphanging, the employees deciding not to carry nioro I than the passengers who could be seated in the cars. That caused a great deal of X disturbance. Onwards from then various applications had been made to the Labour Department, and informations put in j against the company, many of which came jto nothing, which he thought showed that they were vexatious and intended to liarI ass the company. i The case against Mr. Lysaght, Mr. Walklate added*, was largely upon evidence of men who had gone out of the j service. The majority of men now in the service had nothing to say against him. If the Board gave way. to the men it would render the position an intolerable ! one. He had no hesitation in character- ■' ! ising the evidence as regards Mr. Lysaght ' jas flimsy in the extreme. Private inspec- ! ! tion was essential and was used in every j J large undertaking. Regarding the 30- I ! called "blacklegs." they were simply men ' I who had the moral courage to refuse to ! break the law. uad Spry left his car he \ would have been liable to proceedings J under the Arbitration Act, and also to proceedings under the Police Offences Act \ for blocking the roadway. The other I i man proceeded to take his run on the I afternoon. The Company had paid these j i men wages since, and surely no decent i company could do less. (Proceeding.) 1