CASE OF MR MONK

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXV, Issue 12306, 21 April 1937, Page 3

CASE OF MR MONK

COUNCIL INQUIRY MUCH EVIDENCE CALLED WEEK’S PAY AND £IU GRANT’ED At the meeting of the Tauranga Borough Council on the 14th inst. ,he case of Mr L. Monk was debated som e length, and a motion by Cr ~ fl was carried —That in view of various statements and matters dated concerning Mr Monk, the council as a whole be a Committee investigate the whole affair. In accordance with the motion the foMiicil met at i p.m. yesterday, when there were present: The Mayor, Mr L K.-Wilkinson, and Crs A. N. tim F. J- Aliely, T. E. Youngman, ■\y McKinnon, D. Matheson and A. r 'Gallagher. The Mayor at the outset raised ,he Question as to whether the Press representative could attend the loeeting, and said the "meeting was in committee. Cr Aliely said an inquiry was to , held and ho contended that the proceedings should be made public. Cr McKinnon said the inquiry was . the interests of the Council, the Mayor, Mr Monk, and the public. He urged that it should be open to the Press. The Mayor said when a special meeting was called the business to be considered was set out. If the Council decided to deal with the matter in committee it should be in committee. Cr McKinnon moved —That the transactions of this inquiry be recorded for publication in the Press. _Cr Aliely seconded. Cr Matheson said inquiries of a similar nature were taken in committee, . , The Mayor said it the inquiry were to he open those concerned should have been advised according-

ly Cr McKinnon’s motion was then put to the meeting and carried. Mr L. Monk was present. Mr Chas. Cameron, borough gardener, was called. He said that Mr Monk had been a sick man during the time he was with him. He advised Mr Monk to take time off, and he went away for a fortnight. Saw him when he came back and said to him “Don’t think of coming back until yon are well.” Mr Monk replied he would come back on the following Thursday. Again told Mr Monk not to come back and told him he was not fit for gardening work. Cr McFarlane told him (Mr Cameron) to see Mr Denby, the borough forepian. Did so and asked Mr Denby if he could get Mr Monk lighter work. Also saw the Borough Engineer. Mr Monk came back and said he was all right. Told Mr Monk to go to Mr Denby for a lighter job, Mr Monk said “I will he all right. Why the h should I go to Denby. You want to get rid of me. I should not have been off if you had not given me heavy work. I should be allowed to poke around till I am well.” He (Mr Cameron) replied that he was too far back with the work, and it was no use to have Mr Monk poking around. Mr Monk said “You are not the boss. I am not going to stop.” Mr Monk then used strong language, and went mad. Answering tfuestions Mr Cameron stated that Mr Monk said: “Why tne h—should I go to Denby.” He also used worse language than that and said “You b well want to get rid of me.” Mr Cameron also quoted a reference to the Council which he said was made by Mr Monk in regard to what the Council could do with the job.—These words cannot be published. Mr Monk then asked Mr 'Cameron If he could prove what was said. ’ Mr Cameron replied‘in the afflirmative. Mr Monk: “What you said is untrue." Mr Monk was proceeding to make a statement, when the Mayor requested him to sit down. Mr Cameron stated that Mr Graham was present when Mr Monk used the language. Cr Allely said another man was also present, and he should be called. Mr R, Graham, an employee of the Council, was called. He said when Mr Monk came in the morning he asked for Mr Cameron. Mr Cameron asked Mr Monk, how he was. Mr Monk replied he was no good. Mr Cameron asked Mr Monk if he was going to start work and Mr Monk said “Yes.” Mr Cameron said to Mr Monk: “You had better see Mr Denby.” Mr Monk replied, but he (Mr Graham) did not remember the

words. Cr lies; “Did you hear bad language?" Mr'Graham; "Mr Monk was going off pop. I would not like to use the language. It was not too good.” In reply to another question Mr Graham said Mr Cameron did not sack- Mr Monk. Questioned further, Mr Graham related what Mr Monk said the Council could do with its job. (The language is unprintable). 11l reply to Cr McKinnon, Mr Graham said Mr Monk was very angry. Mr J. Denby, the Borough foreman, was next called, and stated that one morning Mr Monk came into the yard and said: “I have been sacked liy that b Scotchman. I told Wm to stuff the job.” He (Mr Denby) replied, "That was foolish; you have sacked yourself.” Mr Denby said Mr Monk had always done his work thoroughly and had given satisfaction. He would give him a job to-morrow. hi reply to questions, Mr Denby said he was surprised to see Mr Monk. He did not say he was sent uown to get a light job. There was 'jo light job at that time. Mr Monk did not indicate he was going to work again, and he (Mr Denby) took it be had left. Mr P. Neilson w r as in the .depot at the time.,, Mr Cameron "ad said to him (Mr Denby) previously that he was going to send Mr Monk to him for a light job, and " e _(Mr Denby) replied he bad nothing lighter than what Mr Monk w as.doing. Mr Monk could do as good a day’s work as any man. He ? d not consider that Mr Monk was " the Council s employ from the morning when he told Mr Cameron "'"at he could do with the job. Jne question of calling Mr Monk, no was in the room from the outsat was then raised. In reply to the Mayor, Cr lies ■ , i ,le Council was not making '"urges against air Monk. The queson of bad language was mentioned Do*uu J” 6 * a mee bi n S of the tin'? 6 a - vor intimated that if Mr . desired he could call anyone he wished. Pail 1 " k- Monk said he asked Mr ho, i? rOll w * ly he should go to Mr nby, and told him he was as good tae work as air Cameron was. "ad been given hard work. On snr o P casion he had to shovel and oread eleven lorry loads of earth of "e yards each. He said that was 1 J ool } day’s work. air Cameron cun' . eu exception to the time octaW hy him (Mr aionk) on a cer'ain job. sai!fv, answer to Questions, air aiouk he w a * ent t 0 Jlr Denby. Told him D- ,' d come for an easier job. air y asked: “Where is there an ji. e , r lob than the one lie (Mr hour had.” Availed for half-an-lhat a,l( ' then went home. Denied tin,m j . used certain words as menteudea i ,y Mr Camero »- H e coniob B u, 16 was not wanted on the suitoi t o .' l * Ir Cameron that the job He So ! u . ra a "d he could do the work, 1. • en P a fd onlv for the days h, a had worked. Itoin ~ nk handed in testimonials Mi Davidson and air J. Padlie,

partment would reconsider them. testifying to his work, ivhich were read by the Mayor. In reply to Cr lies, Mr Monk said he had started with the Council as fai back as 1914. He had also worked for the Public Works Department and the Government Experimental Farm. Mr P. Neilson, an employee of the Borough Council, stated he heard the conversation between Mr Monk and Mr Denhy. AVhen Mr Monk came in Mr Denhy asked him, what was wrong, and Mr Monk said he had been sacked by Mr Cameron. To Cr Gallagher: Mr Neilson said he did not,remember Mr Monk saying he was sent for a lighter job. To Cr lies:- Did not hear Mr Denhy say to Mr Monk that the latter had sacked himself.

This closed Mr Neilsoh's evidence. In reply to Cr lies, Mr Monk said he would not like to work again with Mr Cameron. He had no fault to find with the Council as an employer. Replying to further questions, Mr Monk denied that he was often sick, and maintained he could stand up to the work. He went to the Mayor and also to Cr McFarlane, Chairman of the Works Committee. Asked Cr McFarlane, if Mr Cameron had authority to put nim off and Cr McFarlane replied he had not. Cr McFarlane said he would see Mr Cameron. Mr Monk then retired from the meeting. Reference was made to certain language that had been quoted by witnesses. Cr lies; “I would say it was bad language.” Cr Allely agreed. The Mayor and several councillors reviewed certain parts of the evidence that had been given by witnesses. The Mayor said Mr Monk was a conscientious servant to the Council. A certain employee had been away for four months and was paid full wages. What was the Council going to do for Mr Monk? The matter had been held up pending the Engineer’s report. That report was made and was favourable.

Cr McKinnon said he was very Surry that the incident had occurred. He could not support anything contrary to the usual precedent concerning non-permanent hands. He would like to see Mr Monk kept in view for any light work. The Mayor said it fvas a special case. Mr Monk was not sacked. They should take a charitable view. Cr McKinnon did not favour voting wages which were not earned. Cr Allely said the councillors were the trustees of the people’s money. It would be rank robbery to give away the ratepayers’ money. He would register his vote against voting money to Mr Monk. Cr Matheson referred at some length to matters concerning an accident to Mr Monk’s eye. He had worked for the Council for a long period. It -seemed to him that Mr Monk had had a bad spin. Cr Youngman moved —That one week’s pay he granted to Mr Monk, and that he be given a clearance as regards his character and service. The Council was np against making a precedent. The councillors were there as businessmen to administer the business affairs of the Council. Cr Gallagher seconded the motion. The Town Clerk, Mr R. B. Shearman, suggested that the Council might consider making a grant from a certain Fund. The Mayor said Mr Monk was in the service of tne Council when he reported back for work after his illness. He moved an amendment — That the Council make a grant to Mr Monk equivalent to two months pay. Cr Matheson seconded the amendment. Cr lies said he agreed that the matter of precedent was a difficult thing. The Council was there to deal with the question in a businesslike way iM not in a philanthropic manner. He supported the motion of Cr Youngman. The Council might, however, make a vote of £lO from a special fund towards Mr Monk’s medical expenses and loss of pay. In reply to the Mayor, Cr lies said he did not regard Mr Monk as being in the Council’s employ when he was away ill. , , Cr McKinnon spoke in support of the motion.

The Mayor then altered his amendment to read—That in view of Mr Monk’s services he be given a mouth’s leave on full pay and a grant of £lO from a certain Fund. Cr aiatheson seconded. The Mayor’s amendment was lost. Cr McKinnon moved a further amendment—That having inquired into the Monk question this Council as a committee..has to report as follows; That it fluids '(a) that Mr Monk has served the Council faithfully and well: (h) that in a heated moment of discussion between him and the Borough gardener Mr Monk was directed to report to the foreman in quest of a lighter job: (c) that tbj° was not finalised: (d) that Mr Monk regarded himself as off duty from that time. Cr McKinnon explained that he intended that if the amendment were carried another proposal should tolCr Matheson seconded. Cr lies suggested that an addition be made that Mr Monk be granted one week’s pay and also a vote ot £lO from a certain Fund. The Mayor said he would like an addition to the amendment that Mr Monk was leaving the Council s services with a good character. Cr McKinnon added to the amendment words to the effect that Mr Monk’s character is irreproachable. Cr Gallagher said he would vote for Cr Youiigman’s motion. The amendment was lost by tour votes to three. Cr Youngmau’s motion was then put and carried. The Mayor and Cr Matheson asked that their names he recorded against the motion. , , , Cr lies moved— That this meeting recommends a grant of £lO fromi a certain Fund to cover Mr Monks medical expenses and a portion ot Pis loss due to sickness. Cr Matheson seconded. The Mavor moved an amem.meiit —That the sum of £2O he voted to Mr Monk. —Seconded hy Cr Matheson and negatived. Cr lies’ motion to grant £ • 11 rt ‘ ,s then put and carried.