CHRISTCHURCH TRAMS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 87, 9 October 1935, Page 7

CHRISTCHURCH TRAMS

DISMISSAL OF MEN

ACTIONS OF BOARD

(By Telepraph—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, October 8,

"I say with a full sense of my responsibilities that the board is acting improperly—is acting dishonestly according to all the ordinary canons of natural justice and that Us actions are dictated by an ulterior motive," said Mr. C. S. Thomas, counsel for three appellants who appeared before the Christch'urch Tramway Appeal Board today.

The board is a body set up under statute to determine appeals by employees who have been dismissed from the tramway service or reduced in seniority. The chairman of the board is a Stipendiary Magistrate, in this case Mr. H. A... 'Young, and the other two members a representative of the board and a representative of the employees. As ?-abour members are in a majority ou , the Tramway Board the union representative , and the board representative are presumed to be in agreement. The appellants, William Lewis, Frank George Buckley, and Frederick James Mitchell, all entered the tramway, service during the strike of May, 1932. On the board Mr. J. A. Webb was the union representative and Mr. George Manning the Tramway Board representative. ._',■. •...-.. ..v PERSONNEL.OF BOARD. Mr. Triomas first objected to tne personnel'of the tribunal. He objected to Mr. Webb sitting as a member because he was personally interested in one of the dismissals. Lewis,'at the time of his dismissal, was 39 on the motormen's; seniority Jist. Webb was 60, so that -Lewis's dismissal "would- raise him in .seniority. .;; •■ Counsel's second objection was that Mr. Webb had not been- properly ejected. All employees, not only members of the union, had a right to vote for the election of. a member on the board,,;but Mr. ,Webb had been appointed at the annual meeting ot the union, tovwhich many employees did not'belong.V> . , . . , ;He "objected 'to Mr. Manning sitting on the board for three reasons: He.was a member of the Tramway Board—a party to the dispute. As a member of the works and traffic committee he haa .Conferred with the union and agreed upon the terms on which the rationing was to be carried out, and this was one of the big objections in this dispute, . and that Mr. Manning was present not as an assessor but as an advocate, having declared when appointed that his function would be to carry out the wishes of the Tramway Board:* In reply, Mr. Hutchison objected to .the jurisdiction of the board on the ground that. retrenchment had, been covered by the last decision of the Appeal Board. . . The board retired, and on resuming Mr. Young said his colleagues both assured him they had an open mind and: realised they were acting in a judicial capacity. The objections of counsel were noted. ■■-.'. ARBITRATOR'S RULING. Mr.-, Thomas, opening the case, "said the dismissal jf Lewis was' part of a dishonest scheme designed to get' rid of those known as "new" men. The dismissal of Lewis was an attempt to get past Mr. A. T. Donnelly's ruling when-he acted as arbitrator-'to settle the strlkfe. If the board had-hot been dishonest it had been unjust in dismissing senior men with good re-' cords before, men lower down oh the; list ■ , .........,._.. , ...;, .:■■;./.;,, - The.- third objection''was ■ :that •"• the dismissals constitute a breach of agreements registered under the Labour Disputes Investigation' ' Act' in" January. - Crivingi evidence, Frank ■ Thomson, former general manager of tramways,' said that after the election of. the'

board in 1932 the new men were subjected to persecution by members of the staff who had struck. Mr. Thomas: Was that persecution! known to the board? Witness? Yes. Mr. Thomas: Were any steps taken to stop it as the old board had done after the strike? Witness: Not as far as I know. Witness added that he had warned the board twice that its policy of re- j engaging strikers would lead ultimate- ] ly to the dismissal of men. . i ■ Mr. Thomas: The actions of the j board constituted one of the reasons I why you resigned? j Witness: I could see that the policy ! of the board was to' create a surplus' of staff which .would give it the excuse for dismissing "new" men, and that was why I resigned. The hearing was adjourned until i Monday.