TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21096, 22 February 1934, Page 4

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

♦ | DISRATED MEN | i i CASE AGAINST REDUCTIONS j ! i One of the 23 appeals lodged by em- ' ployees of the Christchurch Tramway j Board was heard by the Tramway Appeal Board yesterday, when the case of Leo Scrimshaw was considered. Twenty-nine appeals against disrating, reductions in pay, or other emoluments were filed, but six were withdrawn. Decision was reserved and the other 22 appeals were adjourned sine die. The appellants were:—Humphrey Noel Garland, Hugh Taylor Ormandy, Leo Scrimshaw, Patrick Steven Lawrence, Robert Todd Caldwell, William Lewis, George Francis Owens, William Sydney Clifton Mogg, John Bradley, John McLeod Moore, Frank Vincent Levey, Thomas Ernest Mark, Robert Blair "Reynolds, Rice Reginald Arps, Edward William Fuller, Frank George Buckley. Gordon Alan King, Allan John Miles Cadman, Charles Schubert Hansen, Arthur William Clare, William Marsden Wilkinson, EdWin Henry Boyce, and Leonard HickMessrs H. A. Young. S.M. (chairman), W Hayward (representing the Tramway Board), and J. A. Webb (representing the Tramway Employees' Union) heard the appeal. Mr C. S. Thomas, representing all of the appellants, appeared for Scrimshaw, and Mr J. D. Hutchison represented the Tramway Board. Request for Representation Mr W. J. Hunter asked leave to represent the Tramway Employees' Union, and submitted that rule 14 of the board provided that all concerned should be permitted to take part in conferences, and as all the men were members of the union, the union should be represented. The union was not a party. Mr Young said, and asked on what grounds I it could be represented. ! Mr Hunter said the union had been j the most interested parly in the negotiations leading up to the appeals and had been the primary mover in the reversal of seniority. "What you want is to see that, the determinations of the union are given effect to?" Mr Young asked. Mr Hunter: Yes. Mr Young: But that would be an extraordinary position, wouldn't it'.' The board has to be the judge; not the union. The board might not be aware of all the facts, Mr Hunter said. Mr Young suggested that Mr Hunter should arrange to act with counsel for the board. After conferring with the other members of the board, Mr Young said the union was not a party to the proceedings. The regulations provided that the matter of appeal must be a personal one to the appellant himself. There were two parties only, the appellant and the respondent board, and no provision was made for the union to be represented. During the 20 years in which the board had been in existence the union had never been represented, and had never previously asked for representation. The First Case The case of Leo Scrimshaw was selected first by Mr Thomas, who said that the others could be considered later if necessary. The evidence to be called in Scrimshaw's case would be very similar to the evidence in tho other eases. Mr Thomas said that he considered it would be necessary to go into all the facts since December, 1930, when a reduction was made in the number of trams running. To avoid dismissing men rationing was suggested. In January. 1931. there was a conference at which it was suggested that the board should pay for half of the rationing dav. The board refused to do that, but offered to reduce the rationing from one day in three weeks to one day in four weeks. On February 13 the union wrote to the board stating that the men were five to one against rationing. In October, 1931, the regulations governing trailers were altered, and the number of conductors further reduced. The board again offered rationing until the surplus men could be reabsorbed. A conference was held in February, 1932, and later it was agreed that the men should be put off on days requested wherever ' possible. i A month later the union complained that the officers of the board were not meeting the men by giving their days off as requested, but could not produce any specific instances. On April 1, 1932, there were 11 surplus men and the board ofTercd to continue the rationing. The union replied that some ' of the men had been rationed more than others, although no particulars were supplied when the board asked for them. On April 11 the union wrote to the board refusing rationing altogether, but suggesting the absorption of the men by holidays. However, fhe holidays had been arranged and the 11 men could not be absorbed in that way, and the board stated that, in the absence of rationing, it would be advisable to dismiss the 11 men because if they were used over the holiday period 19 men would have to be dismissed in September. One Mistake Made At all times, said Mr Thomas, the board was endeavouring to help the men, but the union would not agree to share the burden. When the board dismissed the men one mistake was made—the president of the union (John Mathison) was included in those dismissed. Mr Thomas declared that if Mathison had not been dismissed there would have been no complaint and no strike.

After detailing the action taken to promote a strike, Mr Thomas said that the men had been warned that nonappearance for work would be taken as voluntary retirement from the service. The union replied that it would not negotiate unless the notices of dismissal were withdrawn, but when that was practically arranged by a deputation the union demanded time and a half for any work required on days set aside for rationing. Continuing. Mr Thomas dealt with the history of the strike and the negotiations that were carried out while the strike was in progress. The men who worked the trams during the strike were assured that they were part of the permanent staff, but the union refused to work with them and that led to a considerable amount of trouble. In conclusion, Mr Thomas detailed how the volunteers had been disrated by the new board and submitted that the agreement settling the strike was still binding on the board. Evidence by Appellant The appellant, Leo Scrimshaw, said that he had not had tramway experience before the strike. He detailed his training, and said that, after the election of the new board, he had been disrated from the position of motorman to assistant conductor. Frank George Buckley said that he had joined the tramway service in 1920 and. after rising to the position of motorman, left in April, 1928. He was given work as a motorman in May, 1932, and had since been reduced to the position of conductor with two years' service. William Lewis said that he was an assistant conductor. He had been at the meeting of the union when rationing was discussed and the new men had objected to it unless it wai. applied equally to all employees. William Marsden Wilkinson said that he had joined the service in 1928 and became a motorman in 1929. He was retrenched early in 1931 and re-en-gaged in July, 1931. He became a motorman during the strike and later became a trolley-bus driver. He had been disrated to the position of junior motorman. In reply to Mr Hutchison, witness said that he might have gained seniority without the strike. It was the practice of the board to date seniority from the date of re-engagement, but

that rule had been waived as Tar as | the strikers were concerned. i Jurisdiction Questioned Mr Hutchison said that Mr Thomas had not supported his comments by evidence. Mr Thomas had referred to rationing as the only way to avoid the strike, but it had to be remem-1 bored that rationing wasjin economic and political matter upon which there were two viewpoints. He submitted that the whole of the reference to the union was irrelevant and should not have been mentioned in the absence of the union. There was no jurisdiction to hear the appeals, he said, and went on to refer to the alterations in grading made by the Tramway Board. Seniority was granted on length of service and efficiency without regard to (he break in service caused by the strike. The right of appeal, he submitted. \va< only available in the case of. punishment, and the disrating had not been punishment. The appeal board had already held that it had no jurisdiction in cases of dismissal for the purpose of retrenchment and counsel submitted that the cases before the board were identical. If a retrenched employee were reinstated another man would have to be dismissed to make room for him; if the disrated men were re-promoted others would have to be disrated to make room for them. Neither the old board nor the new board considered it necessary to count the seniority of the men who rejoined after the strike from the time they rejoined, Mr Hutchison said. John Kcndrick Archer, chairman of, the Tramway Board, put in a statement in which he said that the policy of grading the staff on the principle of seniority had been propounded by him during the recent tramway election and the electors had, by a substantial majority, approved it. When the policy was adopted and announced to the employees who were affected by it they made no protest. Rcgrading of Staff The regrading of the traffic staff was a policy matter, Mr Archer continued, and. in his judgment, had to be operated if the traffic staff as a whole was to be fairly treated. It meant a certain amount of temporary hardship for some members of the staff, but it had to be remembered that these men were being continued in desirable employment, with the way to future promotion open to them. In reply to Mr Thomas, witness said he had never said that the volunteers must go whether the appeals were successful or not. In reply to Mr Hayward, Mr Archer said that there would not have been harmony in the staff without the regrading. Mr Hayward: But you had harmony before? Mr Young: We cannot have an argument. Upon being asked another question regarding the position under the old board, Mr Archer said that he hoped his opinion of Mr Hayward was not wanted. ! "No," said Mr Hayward, "and lam sure you don't want my opinion of I you." ! The statement that the appeals would make no difference had not been made by him, Mr Archer said. "Then I have been sadly misinformed," Mr Hayward retorted.' | William Dick, traffic manager for the Tramway Board, said that the men [ who had been promoted were more | competent than those who were disrated. After hearing counsel, the board rei served its decision on the case heard and the question of jurisdiction, the other cases being adjourned sine die.