HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27663, 20 May 1955, Page 7

HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION

Sir-Regarding the statement made to “7116 after the Hotel Workers’ Union special meeting, I think Mr Neilsen’s remark that “it had come to his notice that four of the persons w ho had been nominated for the executive and had taken part in the recent ballot were not financial members” are not quite fair to the 10 new candidates for office. Mr Neilsen should have made it quite clear that the four members concerned are sitting mem. bers of his executive. It is a coincidence that after he had been some years as president of our union, the above facts were brought to his notice a few days after a letter dealing with the matter appeared in these columns. This is the first reform that can be attributed to the 10 new candidates' efforts. There will be others.—Yours, etC.,

May 14, 1955. [The president of the Canterbury Hotel Employees’ Union (Mr L. Nielaen) said that the whole matter regarding these particular members was explained to the special meeting at which Mr N. M. Smith was present. “He failed to raise any objection regarding the fairness or otherwise of my statement and was a party to the resolution already reported in “The Press’ on May 14 being carried unanimously. If Mr Smith requires any further information, I am only too pleased to supply him with it if he contacts me,” said Mr Nielsen.]