ADDINGTON ENQUIRY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 104, 29 October 1909, Page 3

ADDINGTON ENQUIRY.

HON. J. E. JENKINSON EXPLAINS. GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS CRITICISED. By this time the enquiry into the j working of the Addington Workshops, j which was held several months ago, hai j been almost forgotten, but it was given fresh prominence in the Legislative . Council when the Hon. J. E. Jenkinson moved : That there be laid upon the table of the Council a return showing — , (1) The names of those members of the • First Division of the Railway Service ; who have been given a bonus since the year 1900 ; (2) amount of such bonus ; , (3j reasons for giving such bonus ; (4) t the names of those members of the Second Division who have been given bonuses for suggested improvements in railway work of any description since the ysar 1900 ; (5) amount or nature of such bonuses ; (6) reasons the manager had for giving such bonuses ; (7) estimated amount of saving to the department * each such improvement was expected ' to make in the next ensuing twelve months after such suggestion was adopted by the department ; and (8) dates (a) I when suggestion was made by employee, (b) when suggestion was adopted, and (c) when bonue was given. Mr. Jenkinson, it will be remembered, figured rather prominently in the proceedings before the board. " He claimed that the men were entitled to recognition for any improvements they effected in working. From this he commenced to survey the work of the Addington Workshops enquiry, and proceeded to explain his true con nection with that enquiry. His part in the affair, he said, had been misrepresented, but he was amply repaid by the report of the Commission. He indignantly denied the suggestion sought to be conveyed that ho hod acted the part of a traitor to those who had been his fellow-workmen in former times. Was it, ho asked, to be believed that he would "turn dog" on his former coworkers? His reason for approaching Mr Ronayne was entirely different to what it was made to appear. His words had been construed in "a malicious way for an ulterior purpose, and for this reason he had taken the first opportunity of putting himself right. •MR. JENKINSON'S POSITION. ' He quoted from evidence given before the Commission to show what happened from his point of view since 1900 at Addington, and declared that, instead of an improvement being made there, the shops continued to get into a more chaotic state. Discontent existed (he could prove this by letters), and nothing was done to improve things. His visit to the shops was made in November, and his interview with Mr Ronayne took • place in January. Would it be believed that he (Mr Jenkinson) had charged the men with loafing two months after he made the visit to the shops? That was not his method of doing* business. He explained what he had said to Mr Ronayne at tho interview in question. He did not charge the men with loafing, but condemned certain machines and the position in which others had been placed. Finally, he urged that Mr. Ronayne should send an independent officer t6 report on the works. His remarks were twisted, so that they were made to bear an entirely different construction. An army of men had been employed lo ferret out things which would cast discredit on him. THE FIRST INTERVIEW. He explained that he had originally gone to see Mr Ronayne in reference to the payment of the extra sixnence per day granted by Parliament the year before to railway hands. He could not understand why Mr Ronayne had not included the effect of the whole interview in his memorandum, or in his statement before the Board of Enquiry. After Mr Ronayno's memorandum was sent to Adding'lon the speaker called on him and asked, "Did you write this on what I said ?" Mr Ronayne replied in a vacillating way, saying", "Oh, ye 4; partially so;" "Then you have other information to go upon?" Mr Jenkinson asked. "Yes," Mr Ronayne replied. He added that he was sure the work was too costly, according to the records. Mr. Jenkinson declared that he had cast no reflection on tho men. It was scarcely credible that he should go and malign his old friends in the way it had been alleged he had done. One of these days ho might be prompted to say what he really did know, and then there might be- reason for another Commission. The Attorney-General : Why not make one job of it? THE QUESTION OF AGENCY. Mr. Jenkinson : "Perhaps it would be just as well to do so." He went on to explain his real position in connection with the riveting machine, for which he was stated to be agent, at tho enquiry; and in respect of which he had seen the foreman at the works. The machine was one which had been shown at the Christchurch Exhibition, and was one which worked independent of air pressure. He was not the accredited agent for the machine, and he desired to make it perfectly clear that it was of no earthly use at Addington, where the shops were htted with high power services. He thought the machine might have been very useful at other smaller railway shops not so fitted. Then it had been stated that the representations he made to the general manager at different times should have been made to the Minister of Railways. The matters upon which ho had spoken were purely technical — they were connected with details of the working of machinery, and would not have been understood by the political head of the department. He thought he was speaking to experts, but had found he had been mistaken. He held it was the duty of members of Parliament to do what they could to secure efficient working in all State departments. THE RECOMMENDATIONS. In conclusion, he referred to the report of the Addington Commission and to the attached memorandum of the general manager. How Mr. Ronayne allowed himself to write such a memo, reflecting on the work of the commission was beyond the speaker's comprehension. As to the carrying out of the recommendations, nothing had been done by Mr. Ronayne or Mr. Beattie. Probably the recommendations would have to be put into effect by a separate board. Ho repeated that, in terms of his motion, for the good working of the railway shops, it was necessary to recognise merit and see that the institution was harmoniously managed. The Hon. J. T. Paul seconded tho motion. RETURN REFUSED. The Hon. Dr. Findlay said the hon. gentleman, in bringing forward his motion, had taken an opportunity of vindicating himself in respect of what appeared to b>3 a personal difference between himself and an official to whom he had referred. He (Dr. Findlay) was not going to enter upon a defence of that gentleman, because he had not the material at his hand, and because what he might say might not be all that could bo said in the official's, favour. At the same time, he was free to express the opinion thut no on« who knew Mr. Jenki4soß would belkvei JhaV

he could be a traitor to any man. With regard to the information asked for, he was told by the department that it would involve the searching of records over ten years, would cost a considerable sum, and could not possibly be given this session. For this reason ho asked the Council not to pass the motion. Th& return was refused by 13 votes to 5.