RIGHT OF CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 138, 8 December 1931, Page 8

RIGHT OF CONTROL

CITY RELIEF WORKS

DISCIPLINING THE MEN

A CASE IN POINT

The light of the City Council to control the relief works of the city and to discipline the men employed was raised at a meeting of the council last night when the Mayor (Mr. T. C. A. Hislop) reported that a number of men, engaged at Kongotai, who had been suspended for two days and a half for slackness, had been sent back to the job by the Unemployment Committee before the period had elapsed. He contended that the council should have • full control over the city relief works, and his opinion was supported by the council.

The Mayor stated that a number of men at'Bongotai had been dismissed •by the engineer, who found that the men, instead of filling some trucks and pushing them along about twenty yards, were lying down doing nothing. The engineer immediately dismissed the men. These men, accompanied by Councillor Semple, subsequently approached him, and stated that the reason why they had been idle was be-, cause the wheels of one of the trucks had been gritted up with sand, and that they were waiting for one of their number to return from the workshops with some' oil. This was so, but there was no reason why they should not have ■worked the other trucks. However, it was felt that complete dismissal had been a little harsh, and he gave instructions that the men should be suspendedj for two days and a half, which was equivalent to a fine of £2. However, the men had been sent back the following day by the Unemployment Com-| jhittee, and they had lost less than a day's work. The engineer had had no alternative but to take them back. The Mayor stated that the procedure adopted by the Unemployment Committee opened up the general question as to who was to be in charge of the city s relief works. •

A. GROWING SLACKNESS.

• "While the relief works had been done as well as could be expected, there had been a- certain amount of slackness ■which, was confined to a minority, but which, unfortunately was growing. The •city had a right.to expect that the men should work at a reasonable pace, and He did not think that the Unemployment Committee should take charge of the works. There were two reasons for the council having control. The first was that the council had been put in charge of the works, and should see that they were done. The second was there were 500 men who could'not obtain relief work, and they should be giv.en an, opportunity in the event of the men already engaged showing slackness. He thought that tho council should be the controlling body as far as the city relief works were concerned* At the present time, if the Unemployment Committee sent the men along the engineer had no option but to employ them. - ■ ■ ...... Councillor B. Semple said that he agreed that there must be supervision of the work, but he was satisfied that the punishment, meted out was too severe. He did not for a moment hold for any malingering on the job, but to sack a. man at present was simply sentencing him. to starvation. Evidently the committee, had not thought the punishment justified or it would not have sent the men TbaiCk light away. The engineers, he thought, should exercise judgment as well as supervision.