The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY. JULY 25, 1908. THE TRAMWAY DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 177, 25 July 1908, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY. JULY 25, 1908. THE TRAMWAY DISPUTE.

— . —• t Tor Hie cause that lack* aasistano* { For the wrong that v.etdi resistance, j For the future in ihe distance, And the ij-joii that ice can do.

I t The decision cf the Conciliation Board appointed to adjudicate on the mutters in dispute between the Tramway Company and its employees has now been ■ ! made public, and the contest has re- j J j suited in what is practically a complete ' victory for the. men. The terms of the decision are. of course, binding npon the. j ; company and upon the members of the | £ ! union alike, and we do not doubt that ' they ■will be duly carried into effect ] without further delay or difficulty. As ' i Dr McArthur points out several times j in his judgment, the company stands in an exceptional position, because of the ! importance of the duties it has under- ! taken for the general public. It is essential to the comfort, and safety of the ' public that friction between the company j 1 ' and its employees should be reduced to . ( ' a minimum, and this can be done only | . j by utilising such expedients as are pro- ■ , j vided by Conciliation Boards for the ; ] 1 settlement of industrial disputes. The . i controversy in question, though it - I started in a rather inauspicious mnnnrr. I has been conducted in a tolerably amicI able fashion, and Dr McArthur, at the close of the hearing, was aV.- to con- j . gratulate both, parties or. imvinsr yp- j j proached the case without bitterness or j ( , viudictivencss. This is as it should j be; and it is to be hoped that the dcci- I , sion of the Board, even though it docs , not meet the views of the Tramway ! . Company, will be accepted and acted I upon in a reasonable anJ conciliatory ; ] spirit. , Turning to the details of the judgment. ; , we presunw that everybody who reads . I Dr. McArthur's schedule will realise at , ; or.c-e that the uio.-t important point in j , the award is clause i. which orders the 'general manager of the Company to give j , j a written guarantee that in future any. • I employee dismissed from the servi.-e ; ; ' shu.ll be given a valid reason for his , . J dismissal. This ruling is certain to give . , i rise to controversy, for it involves seve- , Iral debatable points. From tin- stand- , point of equity it is certainly desirable ; ' that no man should be dismissed from \ . employment without what may be vague- j ] lv termed a good and sutliricnt reason, j , At the same time, it is extremely ilifli- | | cult to define a "valid reason" in a \va? I , tiuit will satiety both master and man. I Moreover, it i<= hard to get over the <i>n- ! . viction gewniHy held l>y employers th.it , Ihey have aji :ind-uubt»l tn get. rid ; of their employees when they th;:ik tit.] Jf the wage-earner disiiUcs his work or ; is dissatislied with his treatment or his : j pay, he can go elsewhere: and the em- ! ployer not unnatrrally as-:in:rs that he j should have liic >in;iLir privilege of suit- . j ing himself about the men he caoosea ( I to do his work. And we think il will be ( generally agreed that there may be oir-j' cumstaiiccs in which an employer's desire ' ! to disr.ii-s his servant may be just ami . well-founded, even though he could not . state it specifically in the form of a - ''valid reason" that would satisfy the roan. Still w<? admit the justice of the demand for a satisfactory or adequate excuse for dismissal. AYe do not think ' any serious importance attache? to the distinction that bas been drawn be- ! tween "dtsmiss-al" and ""discharge." and j the long argument as to the giving r.f a "character" seems to rather to clonil ' (the main issue. We must leave to legal experts the task of deciding how far Dr. I Mi-Arthur* ruling conflicts with the , ri.izht <jf dismissal enjoyed at common Jaw by employers; r.ni while granting that the decision ia favour of a "valid I reason" is in the main equitable, we fear that the precise definition of this elasti- ! I <_ism is likely to load to a great deal of heated discussion in the future. After clause 2, the most interesting' ■ feature of the decision seems to be the J recommendation th.it Mr Lysaght shall j be "removed from direct contact with the men."' <):i this point we hold unrescrv- '„ ''iiiy that Dr. McArthur has recommend- ; i c.l the best (ourse that could be foilowI cd. 'We atusidi comparativoly little imI portanee to mo>t of the specific r-harzes . I brought against Mr Lysaght; for Mr! , : Walklato ha= covered most of the ground : jby declaring that Mr I.ysaght was ,'carrying out his invtrui-tidus \>h<-n he "I came intu conllict ;\itli the :t:t n. lint, at LI the S.V.HI' tinie, even tf Mr Lysaght h.-.s been simply a:i hone-it an-i faithful ser- j vant of the Tramway Company, it can ' hardly be denied that such friction has ! arisen between himself and the men that' smooth and harmonious relations are not .likely to be established »o lung us lie l _ is retained in l.i- prewnt position. : We do 11 it presume to pronounce ] iin..l jiulciiien". nil the conflicting fvidence fupplieil us u> Mr. Lysagnt's meUii>ds. Ihil w.' :ir>' distinctly 01 iliuj (ipioinn that, under tin- lircimi-tunccs, ' 1 Jr. M-.-Ail"aiir% d.-i-i,i.,n i< Hilly ju-iili -.! j:»yt!.r f-i-i, L.ruu-1.1 ..i, ; ,v .li, in .uiry. j I At the .-j.iie liui". H- Ih.jm- i., it im , , Tramway I on)|Miiy. which bus di-.lared' . 1 it-e-li" iully -iui-=tic-d with Mr i.ysaght. j , will see t 0 it that he d<r< nm siiffer j through his bnalty iv hi- cmnloyci> an 1 j his strict atU'i.itinn to tii- : r iri-T-. As to ih- rem."iiiiing clauses in the \ judgment, we think that they will jm f . I rally mci-l with pubiic npppiral. Withi out entering into ihe i-a.-t> • .' (.'onductor i . : Hcrdson at length, vw may fairiy say i • .that wo think he was entitled tn he heard 1 In iiis own d.-fence when a specific charge :

was made against him. and that his reinstatement follows logically on the Court's judgment. As to the clause which asserts the right of every employee accused of any form of misconduct to see ail reports made against him, and to call evidence on his behalf, this is entirely consistent, not only with the recognised forms of legal procedure, but with the most fundamental principles of justice. But. as we have already said, public interest in the enquiry and its outcome, centres ehiefiy upon the right, claimed by the men to be provided with a "valid reason' , for dismissal, and it is chiefly over this point that controversies are likely to arise in the future. Difficult as the question is, we do not doubt that it can be handled successful if both panics approach it in a reasonable spirit. The peaceful settlement of industrial disputes is always possible, so long as neither employers v.rv men wish to go to extremes, and are at least prepared to try to find the other side's point of view; and if this reasonable attitude is adopted in future, there should be no further need for the adjudication of the courts upon tramway affairs.