MUNICIPAL LABOUR SQUABBLE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13741, 24 May 1910, Page 8

MUNICIPAL LABOUR SQUABBLE.

DEPUTATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL.

Tbe" question of receiving a deputation from the General Labourers' Union regarding grievances alleged to exist among the.Council's labourers, came up again at the meeting of the City Council last night, and it was decided to receive a deputation from Mr. T. E. Taylor, M.P., and the men, at the next meeting of tho Council.

A letter was received from the secretary of the General Labourers' Union asking the Council to receive a deputation from the Union on the subject of a grievance that had arisen in connection with J-he hours, wages, and payment for holidays, of the labourers employed by the City Council. Four speakers had been appointed by the City Council employees, namely, Messrs T. E. Taylor, M.P., E. Hamilton (vice president of the Union), E. Howard (president Trades and Labour Council), and A. Paterson (secretary), and only those four would approach the Council. Cr. Taylor moved that the deputation should be heard.

The motion was seconded by Cr. Thacker

Cr. Sorenseu said that at a meeting of the Union a Mr Howard had threatened to approach tho Council by force or not. If the Mr Howard, a member, of the proposed deputation, was the' one ho referred to, then the Council should not hear him.

Cr. Otley said the difficulty could be got over by a few of the Council's men interviewing the Works Committee. If the trouble then could not be settled, then the men had a perfect right to get an outside body to assist them before the Council. The position was the same as it was before, and the timo was not ripe for a deputation from the Union to be heard.

Cr. Sorensen said the Labour Union had got the impression that they could dictate to the Council because they had got 14,000 votes behind them. They wanted to coerce the Council, and tho Council should not allow that. Tho Council owed a duty to the general body of the ratepayers, and should not be dictated to by a section only. Some of the labour leaders seemed to think it was their duty to tight constituted authority. If there was a real grievance, he was sure every councillor would assist to put it right. Cr. Horsloy said he would oppose the motion. In any case, the Council had decided that until a certain letter was withdrawn tho deputation should not be heard The Mayor said that resolution had been passed at a meeting of the Works Committee. Cr. W. H. Cooper said he did not object to a deputation of two, but ho certainly objected to four. The .Mayor (.Mr C Allison) said tho position had altered since last meeting because the proposed deputation consisted of only four. lie agreed with Cr. Sorensen that the Council should not agree to receive as a member of the deputation one who had spoken of the Council in the way Mr Howard and another unionist had. He had all along been in favour of receiving a deputation, but tbe conduct of the Union had caused him to tako up the position'he had.

Cr. Otley said the Council coidd not dictate to the Union who their speakers were to be.

The Mayor said he would' not agree to hoar the deputation as proposcdT If tho two men objected to withdrew their offensive remarks; and the deputation consisted only of two men, against /whom there was- no • objection, then he would agree- to receive tho deputation. The-motion.to receivo the deputation was then put and lost. Cr. Thacker then moved that Air Taylor and Mr Paterson should be heard. .

The Mayor asked if Mr Paterson had not made objectionable referenceto the Council ,"

Cr Otley said it was not a question o* what objectionable references had been made by certain individuals, it was a question whether the Council wero to discuss the question with their own,men or with outsiders.

Cr. Sorensen moved as an amendment that Mr Taylor and the Council's men should be heard at the next meeting of the Council.

.Cr. Cooper seconded* the amendment. The amendment was then put and carried.