TRAMWAY STAFF DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21728, 10 March 1936, Page 13

TRAMWAY STAFF DISPUTE

FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR THOMPSON

INSTANCES OF ALLEGED ILL-

TREATMENT

A further statement about his allegations of victimisation'by the Christchurch Tramway Board after the strike was made last evening by Mr Frank Thompson* formerly general manager. In . his statement, Mr Thompson gives instances of alleged victimisation of "loyalists" and records his efforts to create harmony among all sections of tramway employees.

Mr Thompson said that after the disrating of some tramway employees within the last fortnight, involving loss of pay, he found it necessary to review the position over a period of more Than a year. He alleged that a number of men had been subject to persecution and victimisation. He said that it was stated that his activities as chairman of the Tramway Mutual Defence League had created discord, and that he had, ever since he had left the service of the board, tried to prevent the healing of sores left by the tramway strike. This Mr Thompson denied. He resigned from the board's employ on March 2, 1935. 1 Nearly nine months afterwards he was asked by several tramway employees to assist them in resisting what they considered to be the unfair treatment they were receiving. He had not volunteered to help them, but had only done so at their urgent, request. Instead of trying to prevent the healing of strike sores, Mr Thompson claimed that his efforts had been en-. I tirely in the other direction, and m ' support of this, he instanced his long r > appeal to the Tramway Union as early as April, 1935, for it to let bygones be bygones, and had suggested one way by which all the employees, unionists as well as leaguers, would be assured from- freedom from retrenchment. This involved a 15 per cent, increase in tramway services which he thought the public would welcome, particularly if it meant a settlement of strike friction. , , He recognised the expense involved, and appreciated the board's hesitancy in adopting it on those grounds; but he only mentioned -the matter to combat the statement that he had done nothing but try to produce discord. Efforts for Harmony He had also written to the "clergy just at Christmas time asking them to try to secure peace. With the same object, he had fruitlessly interviewed the president ot the Tramway Union, early in January of this year. He had also written to the Minister for Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) on January 27 asking if he could not initiate some movement which would reconcile the conflicting parties. Pressure of political duties was probably the reason why this appeal had not yet been acknowledged. /,',, i j Proof of persecution had been asked for, Mr Thompson continued. He had already cited the remarks of the senior stipendiary magistrate. Instances Quoted Mr Thompson said he refused to give the names of employees who had suffered persecution, because to do so would again subject them to the risk of "pillory" methods at the hands of 'certain unionists. He would, howevert indicate a few which were m his mind: — , . , , , (1) A euchre party was being held on the board's premises to which there was a posted invitation, "Everyone welcome—bring your friends." Nq. 1 attended, but he said he was ordered off the board's premises by the doorkeeper, who, on being challenged, said that he was acting under the instructions of the committee of employees. The only thing that could be said against No. 1 was that he was an employee who had refused to take part in the "illegal" strike. (2) A re-employed former striker made such offensive remarks in the Social CJub Room to No. 2, one of the "new"" men, that" he had to be retrieved by his mates from an ignominous position under the billiards table. Other employees had told him that their reception in the social rooms has been such as to cause them to refrain from, attendance.

(3)' A "loyalist" attended a tramway picnic at Riccarton, with his wile and children. His reception was such that he had to leave early, with his children in tears. (4) Another of the union members, a re-employed former striker, used a "police court" epithet to a "loyalist," now a member of the Defence League in the hearing of women passengers. The passengers—a reputable business man in the city, put his statement in writing.' Because he declined to call as a witness the woman friend who was with him, the offending Tramway Union man was not punished. Mr Thompson said that he could quote other cases including thoso of men who have been "sent to Coventry" on the cars by the mates to them, the efficiency of the public service being thereby impaired. Distinguishing: Badges

"Distinguishing badges, quite foreign to tramway uniform are still worn by former strikers, who have been reemployed. Mr Archer admitted in the court that they were 'inflammatory,' and that he disapproved of them, but they continued," said Mr Thompson. ■ "The secretary of the union claims that several new men joined the union .before being compelled to do so by the preference clause in the award. This is correct. Almost immediately after election, the chairman of the board expresesd his conviction" that there should be only one employees' organisation—the Tramway Union—and that if the new men were wise they should join it." Mr Thompson said that he agreed that it was advisable that there should only be one union, but providing that all its members received equal treatment. Because this equal treatment had not been afforded several regretted that they, in their fright, had abandoned their own free organisation. Months afterwards, while still compulsorily belonging to the union and subscribing to its funds, they created their own defence committee, which required considerable bravery and still contributed regularly to its defence funds, in addition to their compulsory subscriptions to the union.

MR ARCHER'S REPLY

ALLEGATIONS DISCOUNTED In reply to Mr Frank Thompson's statement, Mr J. K. Archer, chairman of the Tramway Board, made the following statement: — "I am not going to traverse the long and provocative statement of Mr Thompson in detail. What puzzles me is how to understand his mentality. The first part of his statement is a claim to be trying to restore harmony, and the whole of the second half encourages strife. "In my opinion, his instances of alleged jll-treatment are mainly 'cock and bull' stories. In any case, they ?re one-sided statements with no opportunity for the people charged with offensive actions to tell their story. "Mr Thompson's use of the word 'loyalist' is most offensive. To whom was the man loyal? Why was he not loyal to his fellow workers? "As for the statement which Mr Thompson made to the Tramway Union. I can only say after carefully perusing it that whatever he wished it to be. he could not, as a matter of fact, have made a greater contribution toward keeping open the sores which

exist It would be interesting to know what he has said to the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, because some of us know Mr Armstrong's opinion about traitors to their fellow workers in times of industrial strife.

"Many .proofs could be given of Mr Thompson's contributions toward the maintenance rather than the healing cf the breaches which unfortunately exist among sections of tramway employees. His actions before the Tramway Appeal Court from time to time, his visit to Wellington which has been described as an attempt to get the old to bring pressure upon the present Tramway Board, and his present bitter and vindictive style of newspaper correspondence indicate that whatever may be his intentions, he actually fosters strife rather than contributes towards its abolition."

STATEMENT BY SICK BENEFIT SOCIETY

The views of the Tramway Sick Benefit Society on the dispute are given in the following statement made last evening by the secretary* (Mr Tom Smith) '.— "We desire to try to show how unfounded Mr Thompson's statements about victimisation are. The society is run by the same committee as the union and every new man has been invited to join, and in the majority of cases has joined. If, as Mr Thompson states, we are boycotting, the new men, then we would not have asked them to join, as this is entirely a benefit society. We would also add that £426 5s has been paid out in sick and accident benefit to the new and loyal, men since the strike. The books are open for anybody's inspection, and we think on this statement alone Mr Thompson's charges about victimisation by the union ' should, be withdrawn."

FORMER MANAGER AND BOARD

MR THOMPSON STRONGLY CRITICISED The claim that the allegations of victimisation brought by Mr Frank Thompson, -formerly general manager of the Christchurch Tramway Board, had been made for political reasons, was advanced at a meeting of the board yesterday. Members strongly criticised Mr Thompson, and alleged that his attitude had brought "about the strike and the trouble that followed. If there was not to be an election to-morrow, said one member, nothing would have been heard from Mr Thompson. Mr J. Mathison, who opened the discussion, said that Mr Thompson was not criticising the present board so much as the former board, for the present board had not been in office when the president of the strike investigation tribunal, Mr A. T. Donnelly, gave his decision. Mr Thompson had said that the union had. not complied with that decision,. but as president of the union at that time, he wished, said Mr Mathison, to give that allegation a complete denial. "Mr Thompson waits until the eve of an election before making his allegations, and we are entitled to assume that his statement and his criticism are to be used for a definitely political purpose," added Mr Mathison. He| wont on to say that, unfortunately for Mr Thompson, the chairman of the board had had an opportunity to reply to the allegations, and he j wished to express his agreement with; Mr Archer's view that the board should have dismissed Mr Thompson long ago. From 10 years' experience, he knew that Mr Thompsdn had been re-' sponsible for the trouble that led to the strike. The "New" Men Almost immediately after Mr Thompson left the employment of the board he associated with the "new" men and . formed a Mutual Defence League, of which he was president, said Mr Mathison. Membership was confined to the "new" men, and it had to be remembered that Mr Thompson, when he was associated with the board, • had been opposed to the men being connected with any outside organisation. Mr Thompson should recognise that the union was the proper body to discuss any grievances. The board had tried to create bnrmony, for only with harmony could the affairs of the board be run efficiently. The view that Mr Thompson's statement had been made for a political purpose was supported by Mr R. M. Macfarlane, and he suggested that the board should insist that all grievances should be brought to the board through the union.'

Mr E. J. Howard. M.P., described Mr Thompson as "one of the most ungrateful men in Christchurch." He said that Mr Thompson had been treated most generously by the board, which had to pay him £2 a week for the rest of his life. Mr Thompson should be the last man to criticise the administration of the board. If there had not been an election approaching, nothing would have been heard from Mr Thompson. Newspapers Praised [ The chairman of the board, Mr .J. K. Archer, expressed surprise at Mv 'Thompson's action and at the spirit in which he had submitted his statement to the newspapers. He went on to say that he did not wish to pat the newspapers on the back, for they were opposed to him politically; but, as chairman of the board, he felt he might say he had been given every consideration by the newspapers. "I have had some big scraps with the papers before, and I probably will again," he remarked, "but on this occasion I want . to say that they have given us every opportunity of dealing with Mr Thompson's statement."

The division among the men was affecting the service, and the board would have to consider a remedy. He felt that if Mr Thompson would leave the matter alone the board would be given a chance to restore peace and harmony. If nothing could be done in the present conditions, he said, he was quite definitely in favour of taking some other very strong measures. What they were he would not say at present, but such measures would have to be discussed if the present methods failed, Mr G. Manning, who was the last speaker, said that Mr Thompson had left the employ of the board without either the sympathy of the public or of the tramway staff.