RAILWAYMEN

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 17 June 1924, Page 7

RAILWAYMEN

TRIBUNAL SITTING. CASE FOR A.S.R.S. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON. June 16. The Board of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Railways to inquire: into and make recommendations upon the rates of pay and conditions of employment in the second division of the railway service commenced its sittings today.

Opening the case for the society, Mr. Connolly said tho whole* trend of legislation in New Zealand during the past ten years had been to reduce the hours of work and improve the standard of living for the working man. He quoted from the Year Book to show that out of 41 trades in New Zealand. 17 were working 44 hours a week or less, 14 were working 48 hours or more, and 10 were working between 44 and 48 hours. The tendency since 1914 had been to reduce hours of work and not extend them. The fact that the department had sought to place the railwaymen on a longer working week, . submitted, was a confession of its inability or incapableness of managing* the railways properly and running them efficiently and economically in the interests of the people of the Dominion He referred to the fact that the department had a monopoly in railway transport-, and that it did not have to pay dividends to shareholders. He went on to deal separately with the three branches of railway work in the workshops, traffic and maintenance offices. The workshops were granted a 44-hour week in 1918, three years before the other members of the service. That was indication that the department recognised that the conditions of the workshops men were exactly the same as those obtaining outside the railway service. 'Hie hours worked by the New Zealand railwaymen compared most unfavourably with those obtaining m the Australian service. In trades outside the service in the Dominion all overtime work done in excess of the hours specified in the awards counted as overtime, which was paid tor at the rate of time and a half for thereafter.* 0111 " * a " d do,,bte time The hearing is proceeding.

board of inquiry. CLAIMS BY DEPARTMENT. WELLINGTON, June 16. the Railway Department has prepared a numhqr of counter-claims for presentation to the board of inquiry, C 1 blowing is a summary : Ihe elimination of the payment of special rates for night- work in the traffic branch, whicli does not come within overtime hours. The elimination of the provision for rate and a half payment to maintenance men between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Ordinary time worked in locomotive workshops between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. *°rn- r ordinary rates. Time worked on Sundav as part of the ordinary week to be paid for at ordinary rates. ’ Double rates of pay on the King’s Birthday, Labour Day, Good Friday, and Christmas Day to be regarded as sufficient remuneration, and that the practice of adding to annual leave be discontinued. The special allowance paid to horse drivers engaged in shunting duties be discontinued. The maximum proportion of apprentices to journeymen in workshops to be increased.

HOURS OF WORK. AFTER STRIKE DEVELOPMENTS. MINISTER ACCUSED OF BREAKING FAITH. (By Telegraph.—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, .Tune 16. A strong protest against the way in which the railwaymen lost their 44hour week and eight-hour day was made by Mr. Connelly, president of the Amalgamated Society, when concluding his opening address before the wages tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice Frazer. The society’s claim, said Mr. Connelly, was now amended tb one of 44 hours weekly, the eight-hour day. and payment at present rates for 48 hours, which would be equivalent to an increase of about 62 per cent, on pre-war wages, and almost in line with that which statistical evidence would support. The abolition of the 44-hour week and eight-hour day, he said, took place within one month of the court, sitting to consider the claims of the men. although the Minister of Railways was well aware that the court would be set up. The conditions of the settlement of the strike on April 29 contained no such stipulations, the interpretation of this letter being that the only condition for a continuation of negotiations on the society’s demands was a resumption of work. Subsequently the Minister mentioned at an interview that he had power under the regulation to put the 48-hour week into operation, but would not do so until the matter had been reviewed by this tribunal, this assurance being repeated on May 16. But on May 26 the extended week was put in operation without reference to the men’s organisation. When the Minister was interviewed on May 31 he was asked if any further interference with the men’s conditions would take place prior to the sitting of the tribunal, and he gave an assurance that nothing further than the four hours extension of the week was intended. The society then accepted a .tribunal, but within 48 hours tJtpy were informed that the eight-hour day had gone, making a further inroad in the men’s conditions and anticioating any decision of the tribunal. “The actions ®f the Minister and Department subseonent to calling off the strike,” said Mr. Connelly, “have not been consistent with the principles of strict justice, fair play, and straight dealing. What has been done amounts, in our opinion, to victimisation, although there was an honourable understanding that there would be no victimisation. If the Minister and the Department contend that it does not amount to victimisation, they cannot deny that thev have shown most indecent haste in interfering with the men’s conditions. They have usurped the functions of the court in the most important matters to come before it.”