DRIVERS' DISPUTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23661, 21 May 1940, Page 8

DRIVERS' DISPUTE

NORTH SHORE BUSES CONCILIATION COMMISSION WORKER TO BE RE-EMPLOYED "Tlie employer and the employee both have their respective place in industry, and it is essential that friction should be avoided," said Mr, S. Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, during an investigation yesterday of the strike by bus drivers of the North Shore Transport Company last Friday and the circumstances surrounding it. Before any serious injury resulted, he continued, the trouble could be attended to and the cause of friction removed. l'riction in Auckland caused friction • in Dunedin or Invercargilf, and no body of workers or employees could move without prejudicing the position oi fellow-workers in other centres. Associated with the commissioner in tlio investigation was a, committee representing the two parties. It consisted of Messrs. A. S. Bailey and W. P. Endean, M.P., for the company, and Messrs. L. G. Matthews and F. Muller, for the workers, with Mr. E. H. Jarviii as associate. Mr. L. P. Leary watched proceedings for the company. Action Under Regulations The dispute was referred to the committee by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. P. C. Webb, acting under the War Emergency Regulations. Mr. Matthews,. secretary of the Auckland Drivers' Union, said .the case was one of alleged wrongful dismissal»of a driver employed by the company for two and a-half years and dismissed about a fortnight ago. The employers would allege nngcntlemanly conduct on the part of the driver 011 two separate occasions, but it was hoped to produceevidence to show that he was only carrying out the company's instructions. Air. Matthews said it was thought that the case was a clear one of victimisation following a meeting convened at the drivers' request about three weeks ago, which he attended, as the drivers had several matters of com•plaint relative to_ their employment. . Evidence was given by the employe*; concerned, and by two passengers, whose complaints had been mentioned by Air. Matthews. One said he was present not altogether willingly, ,as he and the company were at arms-length as far as the law was concerned following the incident of which, he complained. The Commissioner's View The commissioner stated that the action of the union in stopping work was a distinct breach "of the award under which the parties worked and should not have taken place. lhe managing director of the company, 111 view of the complaints placed before him, was justified in imposing a penalty on the employee. The only nenaltv that could be effective was that ot dismissal. , "In my opinion, he continued, the effect of" the punishment is to deprive the man of his livelihood, and, in view of existing circumstances, I request the company to consider favourably the reemployment of the worker under conditions that will ensure that the interests of the company's passengers will he safeguarded." ' The commissioner suggested that, as the man was on holiday,, his. reemployment should date irom the expiration of that period. After consideration the directors, 111 view of the commissioner's # request, agreed to re-employ the driver concerned.