LABOUR BOARD’S POLICY

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

LABOUR BOARD’S POLICY

MR THOMPSON’S CHARGES HISTORY OF CASKS RKKORK APPEAL HOARD Allocations that the tramway men in the traffic staff who remained in the service of the Christchurch Tramway Board daring the 1932 strike had been victimised by the present board, and “sent to Coventry” by members of their union, wore made in a statement issued on Saturday by Mr- Frank Thompson, the former genera] manager of the board. Mr Thompson was general manager during the strike. Mr Thompson stated: “When the Tramway Strike Investigation Tribunal was set up in 1032, the chairman, Mr A. T. Donnelly, was Labour’s nominee for the position, in his verdict he said: ‘Both parties have given written and- verbal assurances that my decision, no matter how unsatisfactory to either or both, will be accepted and obeyed.’ Subsequent history shows how the Labour party honoured the obligation it had made. The actions of the Labour board resulted in the whole matter boiqg reviewed by the Tramway Appeal Board, of which the chairman was the senior stipendiary magistrate of the city. “Cases Won” “The appellants won their ease, and back pay was given them by way of compensation. At this stage the victimisation policy of the Labour board was thwarted, but they did not let the matter rest. They engaged more men than were necessary, the object of which was to create later a surplus of staff which would give it an excuse in dismiss some of the men, whose position the magistrate had endeavoured to protect. In time a commencement of this policy was made. The protection of the Appeal Board had to be again sought, with the result that the Labour board was once more proved to be in the wrong. Even then, that decision was not honoured, and a third application to the Appeal Board had to be made. For the third time men, suffering victimisation, won their case. Union Criticised "Although members of the Tramway Union and subscribing to its funds under the preference clause on the award, these men have had to voluntarily subscribe nearl3 r £l3O in order to defend themselves by independent action. If the Tramway Union had been true to its ideals, this extra expenditure by some of its members would not have been necessary. Yet another twist of the victimisation screw occurred a fortnight ago, when a number of these men were again disrated with loss of earning power and with their promotion prejudiced. But under the compulsion of still more appeals, this decision has now been re-

voked, although the men have suffered financial loss, “Denied Membership” “The policy of victimisation has not been confined to the matters brought before the courts. Men have been denied membership in social clubs, which are given the privilege of meeting on tramway premises. They have been subjected to almost unbelievable persecution, by word if not by deed. They have been sent and ptill are being sent to ‘Coventry,’ although they are members of the union. Other men, I have been informed, have been ‘carpeted’ at union meetings because they dared to speak to these victims during their work. “These monstrous happenings would not have occurred if the Tramway Board had cared to . indicate disapproval, but its silence gave consent.’’ CHAIRMAN BLAMES MR THOMPSON MR J. K. ARCHER’S VIEWS Asked if he desired to comment on the allegations of victimisation made by the former general manager, Mr Frank Thompson, the chairman of the present board, Mr J. K. Arcner, replied that he placed the responsibility for the continuance of the staff troubles of the board on the shoulders of Mr Thompson himself. Mr Archer accused Mr Thompson of creating mischief. “Mr Thompson’s statement is venomous and mischievous.” said Mr Archer. “It is another attempt to do what lie has been doing ever since he left the service of the board, which is to try to make the operations of the board difficult, and to prevent the healing of the sores left by the tramway strike. For the strike Mr Thompson was probably more responsible than any other individual, and when Mr A. T. Donnelly was appojnled to make the investigation he had the temerity to issue a threat, for which he was very severely rebuked by Mr Donnelly. “Neither the Labour party nor the present Tramway Board had anything whatever to do with the settlement of tiie dispute, which existed between the former Tramway Board and its employees. Mr Thompson’s quotation from the original report of the Tramway Appeal Board is as stupid as that decision was as a whole. I severely criticised it at the time and my criticism was just. Spirit of Harmony ‘ The strike left, among other things, a frightful condition of disharmony among certain sections of the tramway employees, and the present board has done its utmost to replace that by a spirit of harmony. Personally I have given the matter much thought, and if the men who came into the service during the strike had accepted my proposals we should have been very near tiro restoration of peace by this time, and all the men in the service would have been justly treated. “More than any other man in our service or our city, Mr Thompson has been responsible for the continuance of the undesirable state of affairs that exists, and he is carrying on his proceedings at the present moment. Now that he is out of office he might either let things alone or refrain from making mischief.”