VICTIMISATION DENIED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21727, 9 March 1936, Page 12

VICTIMISATION DENIED

♦ Tramway Union’s Reply ALLEGATIONS OF FORMER

GENERAL MANAGER

The Christchuich Tramwaymcn’s Union has issued a denial of the charges made against it by Mr Frank Thompson, the former general manager of the Christchurch Tramway Board, in the statement which he made on Saturday alleging victimisation against tramwaymen who stayed with the board during the 1932 strike. A special meeting of the union was called yesterday morning to consider Mr Thompson’s charges. The meeting directed a special meeting of the executive to make a statement replying to Mr Thompson. The secretary of the union’s social club, Mr T. W, Smith, has made a separate reply to certain of Mr Thompson’s statements, and challenged him on one specific charge to prove it. “We deny categorically any charges or suggestions that the union has victimised the men' mentioned by Mr Thompson, or. as he says, has ‘sent lliem to Coventry,’ ” said the statement issued last evening Py the executive. “Mr Thompson talks about the men having to subscribe to the funds of the union and coming under its preference clause. But all these men joined the union before the preference clause was in operation. The secretary has a written statement from each man asking to join the union. The majority joined the day after the election and the preference clause did not come into force until the award in January. Approached by Union

“The situation is far from the men being sent to Coventry; they were given every opportunity to stale any grievance they had to the union. Actually the men were approached by the president, Mr J. Wilson, and told, individually, that they could attend the meetings of the union (of which they are members) without any fear of victimisation or abuse, or any discrimination against them. They were not compelled to join the union. “Not one of these men ever came to the union with their appeals. They invariably have gone to Mr Thompson or their solicitor. They have not come to the union with any grievance or complaint about the management that the union has not done all in its power to rectify. It is also wrong of Mr Thompson to say, as he does in tfye charges he has made, that the men affected by the new roster (since cancelled) were to lose earning power. Their earning power and their promotion would not have been affected in any way. The new roster was designed solely for efficiency. “Wc wish to draw attention to the activities of Mr Thompson as chairman of the Mutual Defence League, and we claim that those activities have created discord in the staff. As for Mr Thompson’s charges generally, we make a categorical denial and will challenge them. Ho is absolutely wrong.” Secretary’s Challenge Mr T. W. Smith, who is secretary of the union and of the Tramway Social Club, made the following statement: “Mr F. Thompson has made certain statements about (he Tramway Social Club which I wish to challenge. He has stated that certain tramway employees have been denied membership of the club. I wish to challenge Mr Thompson’s statement, and further I am prepared to back up my challenge with £5 if he is prepared to do the same, the loser’s £5 to go to the Christchurch Hospital. No employee of the Christchurch Tramway Board has ever been denied membership of the club and I challenge Mr Thompson to produce one man who has ever offered me his 3s subscription that I have refused.” Mr Smith also denied the allegation that men had been •‘carpeted” by the union.