Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE SUGAR WORKERS

QUESTION OF REINSTATEMENT. COMPANY EXPLAINS DIFFERENTIATION. PKB ?EESS ASSOCIATION. AUCKLAND, September 7. The decision of the Birkenhead sugar workers not to resume work -until all the men who participated in the strike are reinstated was the 6equel to a statement made by the manager of the company that the company was going to exercise its common law rights, in this matter. In effect this .implied that the .company would only engage whom it chose.* Names of certain men whom the company did not deem it desirable should return to the ... works were; mentioned, one being a\ .- man thirty-eight years in the coffl..pany's employ. In order that there | might he no suspicion of victimisation j it was explained that the company i had a rule which, provided' that no ! . man over fifty years of .age should be employed in the works. It was on ac- ! count of this man's age that his services were to be dispensed with, not because he was one of the strikers. The workers at the Birkenhead Sugar Hennery have not yet resumed, though it was expected they would do \ ■so to-day. In the meantime, the raw sugar will be distributed to meet ur- , gent demands. It is considered that the fact that the demand has not become keen before this shows that fairly large stocks of refined' sugar were held somewhere—probably by domestio users. NO NEW DEVELOPMENT. A Press Association message ' from Auckland received last night stated: — "The. sugar workers strike continues, and no fresh development has occurred to-day." . •

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19200908.2.30

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10689, 8 September 1920, Page 5

Word Count
256

THE SUGAR WORKERS New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10689, 8 September 1920, Page 5

THE SUGAR WORKERS New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10689, 8 September 1920, Page 5