THE RAILWAYMEN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 18 June 1924, Page 5

THE RAILWAYMEN

BOARD OF INQUIRY

(United Press Association.)

WELLINGTON This Day. At yesterday’s sitting of the Arbitration Court dealing with the railway dispute. Mr Sterling, on behalf of the Railway Department, produced a statement showing that whilst the train mileage, which is considered a fair test of work done bv the Department, has decreased by 3,16 per cent, since 1914, the wages expenditure had increased by 80.12 per cent. Mr Connelly, replying to statements made by Mr Sterling during the course of his address, said the actual cost of the hours asked for by the men would be £215,000, not £250‘,000 as stated by thq. Department. Dealing with the housing problem he .contended., that many ’of the houses were quite inadequate for 1 ordinary family comfort. Cheap rentals were thus somewhat discounted.- Referring, to the question of incentive to work Mr Connelly submitted that it was the duty of. the Department to provide that.

THE 48-HOUR WEEK

.United Press Association.!

CHRISTCHURCH, June 16.

‘‘.The Council of Christian Congregations regrets that - the Government an. tieipated, the fiqcliriss of the’ Commission now appointed for settlement of the railway dispute by imposing the 48hour week upon the men.. Since the 48hoiir week was an item of the dispute, and since it was generally understood that the dispute was to he adjusted by the Commission, the councilj believes that the action of the Government was unwise and, not calculated to secure that all-round contentment which is necessary to good work.” Such was a motion moved by the Rev. S. Lawry at a meeting of the Council of Christian Congregations to-night. He explained that railwaymen- had. communicated with the council drawing attention to the fact that the Government had imposed the 48-hour week. ■Mr L. J. Archibald, in seconding the motion, said that he thought it was a matter of bad 'taste on the Government’s part. The chairman (Archbishop Julius) said that it would bo impertinent on the part of the council to discuss the matter, as it was sub judicc. However, the council was within its rights in commenting on the fact that the Government had anticipated the work of the Commission by ‘insisting on a 48-hour week.' The motion was carried without further comment-