SMOKO DEMANDED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 166, 10 April 1931, Page 11

SMOKO DEMANDED

Men on Relief Works DISMISSALS FOLLOW Committee Hears Grievances Grievances of eight men dismissed from relief works on the grounds that in insisting upon taking a smoko they were insubordinate were listened to yesterday by the Citizens Unemployment Committee. Stoppage of work for smoko is against the City Council’s rules. The men had prepared a list of complaints, and the committee invited a deputation to attend when the chairman, Mr. J. I. Goldsmith, gave an answer to each complaint. According to a report supplied by the city engineer, Mr. G. A. Hart, the incident was a “deliberate attempt to defy authority.” “A few agitators,” he wrote, “are more anxious to raise trouble than find work.” He endorsed the action of the district engineer, Mr. Cormack, in dismissing the men. Concerning Saturday work, Mr. Hart said that his department would like to discontinue this, but the only alternative would be to employ about 25 per cent, less men or buy some £lOOO worth of additional tools and gear. Sat Down at SignaL Mr. Cormack the district engineer in charge of the work on which the alleged insubordination occurred, reported fully upon the incident to Mr. Hart, who forwarded the report to the committee. “The steps leading to the discharge of eight men from the road-widening works at Alexandria Road, wrote Mr. Cor mack,” are as follow : — .. “(1) On Friday, March 20, about 100 men were started on this work. In the afternoon at a signal from one of the men the majority of the gang sat down for a period of ten minutes. Most of these men when told to go back to work did so. “(2) On the following day the same act took place, but only a few men responded to the call to stop work. Eight names were taken and the men were discharged and told to leave the job. They refused to leave the job, stating that the council had no right to discharge them from relief work. Their time was not booked for the remaining six hours of the day. “(3) Two days later these men were finally paid for the six hours and were clearly given to understand that they were discharged.” “Not Discharged.” Mr. Brazier, one of the deputation, did not deny that the men had knocked off for a smoko, but they were not discharged. How could that be, when the foreman indicated where they were to work, and got them tools and barrows. Mr. Cormack, he said, was not reporting the incident correctly, and there were JO men to prove this. . . Mr. Goldsmith: How is it that out of 3000 men you were the only men victimMr. Robinson: Cormack only had 100 under him, and 12 were dismissed. Go to the foreman and get the truth! The chairman said that further inquiry would be made, and Mr. McCann, the foreman, would be seen about the matter. Messrs. Davidson and Robinson complained of hours worked which had not been paid for—the hours being when the men worked after Mr. Cormack had allegedly dismissed them. . . The chairman promised inquiry and a reply on Tuesday next. Other Grievances. Other grievances were also dealt with. It was Said that transport to work was sometimes diffieult, one man saying that he took two hours to reach his work from his home at Khandallah. The chairman said that an endeavour was being made to place the men on works as near to their homes as possible. Concerning the complaint that men had to wait for their pay for hours in the rain at the corporation yards the chairman said that arrangements had been made for the men to use two sheds, and, if necessary, a workshop. The City Council had reported that it was impossible to send paymasters round to all the works. The rates of pay for compensation for sickness, or accident, Mr. Goldsmith said, answering another complaint, were fixed by law and could not be altered save by amending the Act.