N.Z. TRAMWAY DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25732, 18 February 1949, Page 6

N.Z. TRAMWAY DISPUTE

NO AGREEMENT IN CONCILIATION UNIONISTS CRITICISE EMPLOYERS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Feb. 17. No agreement had been reached in Conciliation Council in the New Zealand tramways dispute, when an adjournment was taken to-day until tomorrow morning. The council is sitting in Wellington under the chairmanship of Mr H. M. Hopper, Conciliation Commissioner. The employers’ proposals for a settlement were again unacceptable to the assessors for the New Zealand Tramway Employees’ Union. The union’s national secretary (Mr P. A. Hansen) said the union would not accept any worsening of conditions in the industry. Some of these conditions had been in force for as long as 30 years. The chairman suggested that, as the assessors present were experts in the industry, they might better settle their differences between themselves than refer them, unsettled, to the Arbitration Court. Mr L. B. Hutton (for the employers): But there was a statement made early in the proceedings that the union assessors were not going to agree to any variation in the existing conditions. How then could there be a settlement? Mr Hansen: What we said was that we would not agree to any variation which would worsen conditions. Will the employers deny that their proposals would do just this? What is your answer?

Mr Hutton: That question does not need any answer, comment, or reply. Mr Hansen said that the employers could not fail to know what their offer meant for the men. At present, there was a shortage of 89 men in the Wellington tramways staff, and 24 fewer shifts were being worked because of that. In Auckland, a recruiting drive for staff had been launched last Monday, yet the employers at the same time wanted to reduce the conditions.

Mr E. A. Whitlow, for the union, said: “Are the employers aware that the Christchurch Tramway Board has indicated that it is willing to embody the present emergency decision governing the industry into an award’.' Perhaps some of the other employing authorities have changed their minds and agree with Christchurch.” Mr R. E. Dawson, advocate for the employers, said he had no knowledge of any other authority supporting Christchurch in this view. The employers regarded the existing emergency decision as something imposed upon them. The workers were “getting it both ways” by restrictive clauses and penal rates» The employers felt there should be some relaxation to enable them to give the public a better service.