'Hijacker’ notion divides board

Press, 18 September 1976, Page 2

'Hijacker’ notion divides board

A move to have the Christchurch Transport Board dissociate itself from a statement “equating busdrivers with hijackers” was defeated at a meeting of the board vesterdav.

A member of the board, Mr J. Mathison, earlier in the meeting had quoted extracts from a report published in the Wellington evening newspaper, the “Evening Post.”

The report dealt with comments made by the pastpresident of the Local Authorities’ Passenger Transport Association (Mr M. Joel, of Dunedin) at a meeting of the association in Auckland on Tuesday.

Speaking about the present impasse between bus employers and employees in award negotiations, Mr Joel had said: “The essential tactics should be based on the same principle with which one would deal with hijacking —a firm, stout and determined refusal to meet completely unacceptable demands.

“. . . we are not available for any under-the-table deals, for any cloak-and-dagger work, or for any official oldboy arrangement.” Mr Mathison moved that, if the statements were reported correctly, the board dissociate itself from them. The motion was seconded by Lady MacFarlane.

He described the statements as inflammatory, and said that they were certainly not conducive to conciliation. He questioned whether all of the drivers’ claims were unacceptable. For instance, the drivers were opposed to a clause in the employers’ claims seeking the employment of casual or part-time drivers, he said. “If we as an association are completely unprepared to accept anv proposals made by the union, then the union surely has the right to say the same to us," said Mr] Mathison. “That means a deadlock Where do we go from here’ Surely someone must take th< initiative toward compromise before we are faced witl widespread industrial actioi on the buses.”

The chairman of the boar< (Mr M. O. Holdsworth) sai< that he could not support th motion, although he had beei surprised by Mr Joel’s rc marks.

“The position is that our! door is open, but the union won’t talk to us,” he said. “The proper place to negoti-i ate is in conciliation. We are] not prepared to be black-; mailed through strike action ! “That was the core of Mr Joel’s remarks, although per-! haps he did not make them)

at at. appropriate time.” Mr Holdsworth said that! the union had lodged a claim] last year, but had- subsequ-i ently withdrawn it because it I felt that sufficient progress!

was not being made. The employers had then; lodged a counter-claim “to! keep things going.” but the I union had never been pre-; pared to discuss this. The], drivers had failed to attend a! conciliation meeting in March] and the employers had later; made a formal protest to the! Labour Department. Nothing!

had been heard since from! the denortmenl or the drivers.! Mr Mathison: “I still say; that to avoid widespread! industrial action, we should dissociate ourselves from these remarks, in the hope; that wiser counsel will prevail." Mr Holdsworth: “There is a danger that such a motion might be misinterpreted.” i Mr A. J. McTainsh: ”We|' shouldn’t be discussing a! 1 newspaper report without;' knowing the full facts and; the full context in which the ] remarks wer" made.”

Mr McTainsh moved, and Mrs H L. Garrett seconded, that the motion be not put. Mr Mathison said that he knew of no rules of chairmanship where two motions could be accepted simultaneously. Mr Holdsworth said that he was correct in accepting the second motion,' which was subsequently carried. Mr Mathison then moved, seconded by Lady Macfarlane, that the board recommend to the Public Passenger Transport Association industrial Union of Employers ’that it withdraw from its claims the clause seeking the right to employ parttime drivers. Mr Holdsworth said that he could not support this motion either, because it would tie the hands of the employers’ assessors. "Negotiations are a matter of claim and counter-claim — of give and take,” ’’e said. "The present clause gives our assessors some bargaining power. If we take it away, ve would be weakening the assessors’ position.” Mr Mathison: "There is nothing wrong with an element of compromise. In fact, it has worked very well over the vears. Conceivably the union might also thsn compromise and that would be to everyone's advantage.” Mrs Garrett moved an amendment, seconded by Mr McTainsh, that the matter b" left in the hands of the assessors. The amendment was later carried as a motion.