The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1961. The Transport Board And Its Executives

Press, Volume C, Issue 29684, 30 November 1961, Page 16

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1961. The Transport Board And Its Executives

Labour members of the Christchurch Transport Board continue to show a niggardly, narrow attitude to executive members of the board's staff. At this week’s meeting of the board they attempted to prevent the advertising overseas of the position of engineer, first, because they considered this course would be unfair to men already employed by the board, and second, because they thought the board really did not need an engineer. To suggest that New Zealand residents could not compete against an overseas candidate implies a slur upon their ability. By advertising the position widely the board should ensure that the most suitable person is appointed, and also avoid any suggestion that the claims of local candidates are so weak that they require protection against any comparison. As the chairman (Mr E. J. Bradshaw) pointed out, it is absurd to contend that an undertaking as big as the board’s can do without a well - qualified engineering executive. It would be even more absurd to ask the general manager (Mr J. F. Fardell) to accept additional direct responsibility for control of the workshops. During the board’s discussion* of election costs,

i also, the Labour members : adopted an unfortunate i approach in suggesting that • the returning officer (Mr I Fardell) was being paid too i much for his extra work. I Every constituent of the : board should support its ! attempt to devise ways of , reducing the disproportion- • ate financial burden of elec- • lions; but no fair-minded ' person will grudge a , reasonable remuneration for • the returning officer, whose - methods (according to a . report to the board) saved • £5OO this year on the : printing of the roll. Last i July the Labour members • of the former board man- ■ aged to defer for six months ’ salary increases for execu- « tive staff. Mr W. S. Mac- • Gibbon then commented > that the board was the only t transport board in New ■ Zealand “ that had not kept r “ pace in salaries for its t “executives”. Comparisons > with other centres and ■ similar undertakings aps peared to show that the i Christchurch executives s suffered under a legitimate i grievance. This kind of j parsimony cannot be ex- > pected to foster efficiency • and good service to the . public. The sooner all mem--1 bers realise the need to r treat skilled executives . properly, the better it will - be for the Christchurch , transport system.