MEN DISMISSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 239, 9 October 1935, Page 16

MEN DISMISSED.

INJUSTICE ALLEGED. ECHO OF TRAM STRIKE. NEW BOARD CRITICISED. (By Telcgrnpli.—rress Association.) CHRISTCHURCII, Tuesday. "I say with a full sense of my responsibilities that the Tramway Board is acting improperly, that it is acting dishonestly according to all the ordinary canons of natural justice, and that its actions are dictated by an ulterior motive," said Mr. C. S. Thomas, counsel for three appellants who appeared before the Tramway Appeal Board to-day. The Appeal Board is a body set up under statute to determine appeals by employees who have been dismissed from the tramway service or reduced in seniority. The chairman of the board is a stipendiary magistrate, in this case Mr. H. A. Young, and the other two members are a representative of the Tramway Board and a. representative of the employees. As Labour members are in a majority on the Tramway Board, the union representative and the board representative are presumed to be in agreement.

The appellants, William Lewis, Frank George Buckley and Frederick James Mitchell, all entered the tramway service during the strike of May, 1932. On the Appeal Board Mr. J. A. Webb was the union representative and Mr. George Manning the Tramway Board representative.

Objections by Counsel,

Mr. Thomas first objected to the personnel of the tribunal. He objected to Mr. Webb sitting as a'member bccausc ho was personally interested in one of the dismissals. Lewis at the time of his dismissal was thirty-ninth on the motormen's seniority list, and Mr. Webb was sixtieth, so that Lewis' dismissal would raise Mr. Webb in seniority. Counsel's second objection was that Mr. Webb had not been properly elected. All the employees, and not only members of tho union, had the right to vote for the election of a member on the Appeal Board, but Mr. Webb had been appointed at the. annual meeting of the union, to which many employees did not belong.

Counsel objected to Mr. Manning's fitting on the Appeal Board for three reasons: That he was a member of the Tramway Board, which was a party to tlio dispute; that Mr. .Manning, as a member of the works and traffic committee, had conferred with the union and agreed upon the terms on which rationing was to be carried out, and this was one of the big objections in this dispute; and that Mr. Manning was present not as an assessor but as an • advocate, having declared when he was appointed that his function would be to carry out the wishes of the Tramway Board.

In' reply, Mr. J. D. Hutchison, counsel for the Tramway Board, objected to the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board on the ground that the retrenchment had been covered by the last decision of the Appeal Board. The board retired, and on resuming Mr. Young said his colleagues had both assured him that they had an open mind and realised that they were acting in a judicial capacity. The objections of counsel were noted. " Part of Dishonest Scheme." Mr. Thomas, opening the case, said the dismissal of Lewis was part of a dishonest scheme designed to get rid of those known as the "new" men. The dismissal of Lewis was an attempt to get past Mr. A. T. Donnelly's ruling when he had acted as arbitrator to settle the strike. If the Tramway Board had not been dishonest, it had been unjust in dismissing senior men with good records before men lower down on the list. A third objection was that the dismissals constituted a breach of the agreements registered under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act in January. Giving evidence, Frank Thomson, former general manager of the tramways, said that after the election of the board in 1932 the "new" men were subjected .to persecution by members of the staff who had gone on strike. Mr. Thomas: Was that persecution known to the board? Witness: Yes. Mr. Thomas: Were any steps taken to stop it, as the old board had done after the strike? Witness: Not as far as I know. Witness added that he had warned the board twice that its policy of reengaging strikers would lead ultimately to the dismissal of men. Mr. Thomas: The actions of the board constituted one of the reasons why you resigned? Witness: I could see that the policy of the board was to create a surplus of staff, which would give it an excuse for dismissing the "new" men, and that was why I resigned.

The hearing was adjourned until Monday.