THE TRAMWAY STRIKE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13479, 4 May 1907, Page 9

THE TRAMWAY STRIKE.

CHARGE AGAINST THE

COMPANY.

TAKING OF EVIDENCE CONCLUDED, ; The hearing of the case in which the Auckland Electric Tramways Company, Limited, are charged with committing a broach of tho ' tramways award, 1904, by dismissing without good cause a number without a Peek's notice, was continued before the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon. The 011 . J. A. Tole, Crown solicitor, appeared lor the inspector of awards, and Mr. Tlkw. Cotter for the Tramways Company. Mr. To!© stated that he did not wish to call any further evidence, and would close his case accordingly. Paul M. Hansen, managing director for the company, stated that when tho company started operations in November, 1902, the motormen required were obtained from Sydney, and these men in turn taught other motormen as they were required. They were given nothing extra for teaching learners, it being part of their duty to do b0 He had never on any occasion prior to' November 14, 1906, the day of the strike, received any notice from any of the men that thev did not, consider teaching learners as part of their duty. Up to the tune that ho received a letter from Mr. Rosser on November 14, he had conducted the business Vof the company on the assumption that instructing learners was part of the duties ot motormen. ~ ;,i ( u„ In reply to His Honor witness aid he motorman's duty was confined to teaching learners how to run the car only. It was tho duty of the motoi inspector to sec that the learner fill v understood tho undergcar. 1 His Honor said the Court was satished on the point that it was part of the duty 0,. motormen and conductors to teach learners Sd that Mr. Cotter need not pursue the .. subject unless Mr. Tole caused them to change their opinion. . Tho Crown Solicitor said he wished to get material from witnesses in order to crossexamine on this point. Continuing Ins evidence witness said no was astounded at Rosser's letter. lb was like a bombshell, for it was the rule all over the world that motormen and conductors taught learners. He considered the letter as a most serious matter, because it the men would teach no more learners it would mean that motormen would have to he imported from Sydney or elsewhere, and again, if thev refused to do this it was probable that thev would refuse othei things. He had never up to that time or since given anv intimation to the motormen that ho intended to replace then, with other men from Sydney or elsewhere Refusal of duty was regarded as a very grave breach of the company's regulations, and must Ik; followed bv dismissal. That was. the only reason why the notice of dismissal was given What, induced him to take the men back was a stipulation made by the men at the conference to take back all the men who had been dismissed. The Crown Solicitor: How do you know it was part of the men's duty to teach * Witness: This is the custom the world OV Can von show me the regulations providing for" this!— These were verbal orders. Oh, this is the first I heard of them. How were these orders conveyed to the ln on'—Thev were conveyed verbally to each man. The mattei is referred to in the regulations. '. ' Have you issued new regulations?— Yes. Under" tho old rule motormen before appointment must practice on a car until they tire considered efficient. Now you say they must be instructed. Why was that alteration made'.'—There was no special reason. ACCIDENT TO A CONDUCTOR. You know of the accident which occurred to Louis Birch. Do you know the circumstances? Yes, I do. Was not Birch injured in consequence or .the action of a learner?—l would not say ! thet. Birch's accident was due to his own (carelessness. •-. . You will correct mo iF lam wrong. I '»m told that Bircb got off one car and in 3 running round to the other end to adjust | the trolley polo he got between his own -Sioar and a freight car. The learner, who •1 was on Birch's car, then applied the power, M (ending the car back, with the result that '*i'Birch got jammed and had to have his leg •■1 jmput °fr* th*t niKht?—Birclt ran round ■hi''* a 'Very reckless manner, evidently not considering whether his car was going to move on or move back. It was duo to his own fault. ~ .■.'■• Bv the action of the learner in turning t» the power. You do not say negligence on the part of the learner. I thought you would rather have commended the conductor on his smartness?— There is such a thing as being a little too smart. Ho was recklessly smart. However, there was a learner on the car when the accident happened?— Yes. MR. CAREY'S RESIGNATION. Mr. Oarey left shortly after the strike?— Yes - • 't ■ »u- • Was that in consequence of anything in connection with the strike?—No, I don't think it was. . . Absolutely was it not in connection with his conduct in respect to your instructions lit that time?— it was not. He was not dismissed, was he?—No, he was not. He resigned. Charles Francis Alexander, traffic manager for the Dunedin Corporation tramways, stated that if he had received a letter such as Mr. Hansen did from the men he would have considered it a serious matter. He did not know what he would have done unless he had the whole of tho circumstances of the case before him. His Honor: You would probably havo tried to smooth it over. Witness, in reply to further questions by Mr. Cotter, said he would have got the men who were in the habit of teaching learners 'into his office, and if they had refused to go on teaching then he would have dismissed them.' Mr. Hansen, recalled, stated that he inquired personally into all matters relating to' Beeston, Kidd, and .Isaacson. Mr. Cotter offered to call Mr. Lysaght to rebut the statement which it was alleged •he made regarding the putting on of more ,men, but His Honor said it was not neces- • sary. This closed the evidence. MR. COTTER'S ADDRESS. Mr. Cotter, addressing the Court, submitted that the question" which they had to decide was of a very important character, and ' one which would have a very widespread effect if, for the moment, the Court, having decided fnat it was the duty of the men to teach learner*, then said that the company could not discharge their employees for having refused to do that work, simply because the learners in question were not brought forward for them to teach. Ho submitted that it was surely not tho law and he thought it would be hardly contended on the other side that it was the law —that an employer, after a man had told him over and over again that he would not do the work he was engaged to do. could only dismiss thai man after he had been "ordered" to do the work, and had deliberately refused. Supposing ho (the speaker) employed a man to go to Onehunga, the Waikato, or the King Country, to do. some work for him, and supposing ■that that man said distinctly before he went, "I know before I go that you are going to ask me to do some bushfelling, but 1 won't do it," was the Court going to lay that, until he sent that man to his destination, and placed an axe in his hands, md the man refused to work, that then, »nd then only, he (the speaker) would be justified in dismissing him? Ho did not Ihink so. The gravity of the present case lay in the fact that the men did not act individually, but held a meeting, and passed a resolution, which was a threat that if the company did not do as they desired, then they would - block the service, or, in other words prevent, the company from obtaining the. men required, because they ■would not teach anv more learners. Tins resolution, he contended, was an ultimatum without an hour's notice, and if the men Lad been on a vessel at sea, and had done the same thing, then their conduct would have been regarded as mutinous. What self-respecting employer, he asked, could receive such a resolution as Mr. Hansen did without asking: ''Who is to run these trams, the men who are. paid for their work, or the persons who were responsible for putting £500,000 info this particular line, for the convenience and use of the public?'' Mr. Tole: No; for the shareholders. Mr. Cotter: For the profit of the shareholders, but for the convenience and use 01 the public. Continuing, Mr. Cotter submitted that the sending of the resolution ,n the terms in which it was couched was sufficient to justify the men's dismissal. ■ Mr. Tole requested that he should be altowed to address Court in the morning. His request was granted, and the further hearing of the case was adjourned accordingly leave being granted to Mr. Cotter to his »ddre»s if ho wished. "■'«« \t s** *K a »n»t the men will bo taken