West Arm Man Reinstated

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30478, 27 June 1964, Page 1

West Arm Man Reinstated

A decision that a West Arm worker, Mr R. W. D. Taylor, be reinstated to his former position of leading hand as from June 4, 1964, was announced yesterday by the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr S. W. Armstrong). The arbitration hearing was held in Dunedin on Tuesday.

Mr Taylor was demoted from leading hand to tunneller when he returned late to West Arm after representing the men in Wellington in a jurisdictional dispute. The demotion of Mr Taylor led to a strike of several days by about 120 workers at West Arm. In his decision, Mr Armstrong said that “having regard to all the circumstances, Morrison-Downer-Fletcher, the tunnel contractor at West Arm, was not justified in demoting Mr Taylor. “I am of the opinion that Mr Taylor will resume his leading hand duties with a sense of loyalty to his employers, and with co-operation from his fellow workers and management, harmonious industrial relations should prevail,” said Mr Armstrong. Mr Armstrong said that the employer had failed to substantiate the claim that Mr Taylor’s work as a leading hand had deteriorated. “Not Informed” “Mr Taylor was certainly never informed or warned as to the alleged deterioration,” he said.

One of the main points of the employing company’s case, he said, was that Mr Taylor had absented himself from the job without permission for eight days from May 27, 1964. The company had vigorously denied any suggestion of victimisation. The company, said Mr Armstrong, had said that it had no objection to Mr Taylor taking leave for legitimate union business but claimed that a leading hand was expected to be on the job and certainly should not absent himself without leave. “I am satisfied that Mr Taylor verbally applied to the tunnel superintendent (Mr H. Pearce) for the special leave in question to be taken in conjunction with Queen’s Birthday week-end,” said Mr Armstrong. “I am satisfied that he had reason to believe the application was approved. “The management certainly did not refuse the application and they were aware that he

was going on the proposed leave.” Mr A. S. Alsweiler acted as advocate for the employing company and the secretary of the New Zealand Workers' Union (Mr H. J. Allen) acted for Mr Taylor. Evidence was also given by the tunnel superintendent (Mr Pearce), the personnel manager (Mr D. A. Buckingham), Mr Taylor and a fellow worker, Mr G, Way. Commenting on the case, Mr Armstrong said that he was fully aware of an employer’s legal right to hire and fire, promote or demote. “But surely in asking me to act as an arbitrator the parties are, to a certain extent, waiving their strict legal rights,” he said. “Our present industrial law is defective in respect to a dispute such as this. A worker or union organisation has no right of appeal against an alleged unfair or unjust dismissal or demotion.

“The parties are aware of this defect and rather than fight it out on the job, agreed in a friendly manner to submit the circumstances to an arbitrator.”