Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Fire Chief Says He Was Misconstrued

(New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, January 17. Wellington’s chief fire officer, William James Henderson, gave evidence for five and a half hours today before the committee of inquiry into relations between the Wellington Fire Board and the Wellington Firemen’s Union. Henderson was being cross-examined by Mr T. Hill, representing the union, when proceedings were adjourned till tomorrow.

Mr Henderson said it would assist all members of the brigade if there were a “clear-out code of discipline” introduced in the service throughout New Zealand. The Fire Service Council should draft a code so that it would be possible under the Fire Service Act for each board to adopt it. Mr J. H. Dunn, representing Mr Henderson and other officers: It has been suggested that you are prejudiced to unions and awards. Mr Henderson: To say that is an insult to any man’s intelligence. I am a member of a union. I am a member of a union executive, and in my job I have to attempt _ to maintain friendly relations with union people. To suggest I am prejudiced against awards is ridiculous —I have to work with them and under them. Mr Henderson said he had no intention of victimising the dismissed fireman, Keith Haliburton, president of the Wellington Firemen’s Union, when he decided to move a resident officer into the Khandallah flat occupied by Mr Haliburton. He had decided to rectify a weakness in the city’s fire defence and make a flat available for a resident officer at Khandallah. One of two drivers had to be transferred to make room, and Mr Haliburton had two children while the other had three. Mr N. A. Morrison (for the Board): Was there ever any intention throughout the whole of your activities to victimise Haliburton? Mr Henderson: None whatsoever. Mr Henderson said that after taking his appointment in Wellington he had suggested that the conditions of service and a disciplinary code be revised. He drew up a draft, but the union had made no move on it. To Mr Dunn, he said he was extremely proud of the officers and men under his command. The majority of them were keen and willing to learn and co-operate. On one occasion a relieving officer at Thorndon had discovered an egg in his boot. Mr Henderson had gone to Thorndon, paraded the men, and told them the act was childish and served no purpose—it could only be construed as an attempt to interfere with efficiency and was certainly an attempt to inter-

fere with discipline. He had no intention of taking disciplinary action, and none was taken. A reference earlier on the inquiry on “slogging it out” had been completely misconstrued. His remarks at Thorndon were an aside to an officer—“l passed a remark that in my brigade in Liverpool we usually settled feuds in the ring,” “Not Anti-Unionist” Examined by Mr Hill, Mr Henderson said he would resent any suggestion that he was anti-unionist. Mr Hill: Do you believe in a policy that any employee working under an award receiving the benefits of that award should be a member of the union. Henderson: I think he ought to, where compulsory unionism is the law of the land. Is compulsory unionism the law of the land?—Not today here, but there is compulsory unionism where the vote is for it. If the vote is for it, I would agree with it. You have a preference clause, and all members of the union are compulsory members. On the “egg in the boot” incident, Mr Hill asked: Do you seriously tell us the custom in Liverpool would be to settle things in the ring? Mr Henderson: Between men —not between officers and men, of course.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19640118.2.156

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30342, 18 January 1964, Page 17

Word Count
622

Fire Chief Says He Was Misconstrued Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30342, 18 January 1964, Page 17

Fire Chief Says He Was Misconstrued Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30342, 18 January 1964, Page 17

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert