A STRIKE INCIDENT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1361, 12 February 1912, Page 6

A STRIKE INCIDENT.

AND THE SEQUEL,

Mr. M. .1. Reardon, secretary of the General Labourers' Union, proposes to bring under the notice of the City Council what ho regards as a case of victimisation in breath of the agreement recently concluded between (he council and the 'iramways Strike Committee. While iho tramways strike was in progress trouble arose in connection with a gang of men who were engaged in tarring the tramway track betweea the rails. Two 'men, who were working ahead of the gang, cleaning the grooves of the rails, wero told by Mr. Heardon that they had no right to be doing that class of 'work. When this was reported to the corporation authorities they suspended the wlmbi gang, holding that the stopping of these two disorganised the work of the whole gang. Mr. Kcardon's version oi the affair is that he spoke to the two men in question after they had finished the work to which he took exception. Ho s'iyi that he spoke to them at about 1.30 p.m. (on February 1), when they wore at. the. corner of Vivian Street and Cuba Street. The other members of the gang, according to Mr. lieardon, were then working around Oriental Bay. Tho men, he adds, had been inatruetfd by their foumaa to report if any complaint wero made to thum about working. They did so, and, at four o'clock in tho afternoon, the members of the gang were called into the yard and told that,' as the men mentioned hod been told not to do rnilcleaning, there was no work for any of them to do. The sequel, upon which Mr. Koardoi: bases his charge of victimisation, is that one of the two labourers who figured m the episode on February 1 was dismissed on Saturday. Mr. lteardon asserts that' the labourer's only offence was that In. had taken orders from a member of the gang, in the absence of its foreman, to return (o the corporation yard. Mr. R?nrdon says that the remaining members of the gang with which the dismiss ed man was working on Saturday wero in the same position as lie was. ' The\ had completed a job, and accepted in". strnctions from one of their own number, (he foreman being absent, to return to the yard. Mr. Reardoii holds that the man dismissed was victimised, and, on the ground that this particular lal>ourer, with others, was frequently engaged upon track repairs and similar work, he holds, further, that the dismissal constitutes a breach of tho agicement which terminated the tramwnvs strike. The foregoing statement wai submitted las! evening to Mr. W. H. Morion (Citv Engineer). He stated that he knew mithing of the circumstances upon which Mr. Reardon based his allegation of victimisation, but considered it extremely unlikely that any man had,been singled out as stated by the union secretary.