A WANT OF TACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13488, 15 May 1907, Page 8

A WANT OF TACT.

In the present case the men took- what the Court had held to be a wrong view of their duties, and declined any longer ■ to do work which they claimed was outside their contract of service until a dispute was settled. The Court' could not see that in the circumstances .. this conduct amounted to, insubordination or was calculated to injure the company's business. It would be easy to imagine a case in which it' might be . of ; the utmost importance to an employer that his servants should hold proper views .as to a particular duty, and that a servant who * had expressed quite honestly unsound views on- that subject might be dismissed at once without it being necessary to put him to the test by directing him to perform the : particular.' duty. Mr. Cotter during the course of his argument had put several of such cases by way of illustration. The present, however, was not such a case. The company had a large number of spare motormen and conductors, and it was not suggested that it was necessary to have any learners taught at once. Mr. Hansen in a .letter of November 14 spoke of having a few extra men taught .owing to the fact that very shortly three now cars would be added to the then rolling stock. It also appeared • from the evidence that the learners who were on the cars on November 14 were being ; taught the: same as before. It was clear, therefore, that the views hold by the men were ■ not at any time interfering ■ in any way with the conduct. of the company's business. If the extreme steps that were taken on the 14th had not been resorted to and if the men had been handled with a little more patience and tact: the trouble that followed would, the : Court thought, have been averted and the men would have been soon brought to see ■ that their attitude with regard • to learners ' was wrong. In dealing with this point the Court desired to make it clear that it did; not approve of , the attitude taken up by the men- under the resolution of November 13, and all that the Court Would" decide was that it was conduct which in the circumstances did not justify immediate dismissal. That the company did not. * regard it - as justifying ■ suchdismissal was shown by the fact that the company did not dismiss the motormen and conductors', who 'passed •': the resolution, but only those who did not'give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Carey's questions. •" ■•• ;--:• The ;Court held i that the company did not have good 3ause for dismissing the men, ■except Boyce, and imposed a fine of £5, and

ordered the company to pay ,tb& fees of Court' and witnesses' expenses, costs to he taxed by the clerk of awards, but the company was not to pay the expenses of any witnesses called exclusively to prove that it was not ; the duty s of the men to teach learners. . * >

MOTORMAN AND CONDUCTOR FINED. In regard to the charges against Sydney Michael ; Farrelly and Edmund ; Fletcher, motorman and conductor respectively, the Court inflicted a small penalty. The Court in giving judgment said that the respondents had admitted- that .they had committed an offence under section 15 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905, by taking part in the strike ori November 14. The events which preceded the strike were set forth in the judgment delivered in the case brought by the inspector of factories against the Auckland Electric ' Tramways | Company. The strike was caused by the action of the company in* dismissing the motormen and conductors referred to in • that > case, and was < the method adopted by/their fellow workers of expressing, their indignation at what appeared to them the' arbitrary action of the company in dismissing : these men. The strike was very short-lived, and seemed to have taken place without premeditation or organisation of any - kind. In view of the circumstances the Court. thought it sufficient to impose a fine of £1 without costs. ;