A LETTER REFUSED

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 17, 21 January 1927, Page 10

A LETTER REFUSED

TRAMWAYMEN'S COMPLAINT. COUNCIL ADHERES TO DECISION". More was heard last night, of the letter from the Auckland Municipal Iramways and Omnibus Employees' ' nion, which the C ity Council refused to receive on December 0. The secretary wrote stating that he was directed by his committee to convey to the City Council the following resolutions, adopted at a meeting held 011 Wednesday. January 12: "That in our opinion the communication which the City Council declined to receive contained nothing written or inferred to which any reasonable persons could take exception, and as the subject matter contained therein was correct in every particular, we regret that we cannot see our way clear to alter the communication, which we again forward with a request that it be received." ''That as citizens and ratepayers we consider we are entitled to make a protest, and receive from the Council an explanation for the granting of the holiday to one branch of the tramway service whilst at the same time refusing this privilege to employees in the permanent way and workshops department." In moving that the letter be received and referred to the Legal and Finance Committee, Mr. E. J. I'helan said he knew that no slight was intended. Now that he had seen the letter he could see that no insult was intended to the Mayor. The men were only asking for fair treatment. Mr. J. B. Paterson supported the motion. Air. A. .T. Entrican moved as an amendment, "That the letter forwarding the resolution be received." Mr. J. A. C. Allum pointed out that the Council had not refused to consider the complaint. It had been decided not to receive the letter which was couched in improper terms, since it had been alleged that the Mayor had acted in an unfair manner. He had not acted unfairly, and the men should not be allowed to say so. If they wrote a proper letter the complaint could be investigated.

The letter just read could not be "received," said Mr. C. F. Bennett, because it contained a statement that the previous letter "contained nothing written or inferred to which any reasonable person could take exception." If this second letter were to be received the Council would be making an admission that they were not reasonable persons.

Miss E. Melville drew attention to the fact that the second letter contained a copy of the first, and therefore could not properly be received.

It wa& resolved to adhere to the previous decision of the Council.