HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11867, 28 June 1924, Page 6

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THE RAILWAY DISPUTE QUESTION RAISED BY LEADER OF OPPOSITION. BUT AMENDMENT RULED OUT OP ORDER Tho House of Representatives met at 2.50 p.m. yesterday. NEW BILLS Mr S. G. Smith (Taranaki) gave notice to introduce the New Plymouth Borough Council Empowering; Bill and the New Plymouth Borough Council and New Plymouth Harbour Board Exchange Bill. Mr. \V. A. Veitch (Wanganui) gave notice to introduce the Wanganui Borough Council Special Rate Empowering and Enabling Bill. FIRST READINGS Mr .T. K. Sidey’s Summer Time Bill and Mr Wilford’s Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill were read a first time. Tho Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill and Wellington City Pahiatua Endowment Sale Empowering Bill were read a first tirrie and referred to the Local Bills Committee. IMPREST SUPPLY BILL AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO GO INTO COMMITTEE. The preliminary business was completed by 2.55 p.m., when the Imprest Supply Bill was introduced by GoYomor-Gen-eral’s message. On the Prime Minister’s motion to go into Committee of Supply, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford) moved as an amendment, "That this House, while opposing direct action and tho i strike method, affirms the principle of [ tho 44-houis week for the railway workers in terms of the agreements of 1920 and 1921.” He had, he stated, copies of those agreements in his hands—the first being an agreement between the Government and the railway men that the ordinary hours of duty of the men in the locomotive running shape and tho men of tho Second Division employed under the control of car and. wagon inspectors should be 44 hours per week. This was agreed to after the board 6et up had reported in favour of it; and in the later agreement the 44-hour week was extended to all employees in the Second Division, with the exception of tablet porters, crossingkeepers, bridge-keepers, watchmen, nightwatchmen, waiting-room attendants, employees in the refreshment branch and: in the Lake Wakatipu steamer service, and such like, who were to remain on the 43hour mark The board referred to was presided owed by Sir GeoTge Elliot, and comprised also three representatives of the Railway Department and three of the A.S.R.S. The returns for tho year prior to the granting of the 44-hour week showed that the Government earned that year 1.07 per cent.; whereas to-day tho Government admitted that tho railways were earning ovor 3| per cent. They had earned last year 3.82 per cent. The railwaymen carried on their work under those agreements until the strike took place. "FORCED BACK TO 48 HOURS.” But since the men had returned to work and before the board, or commission. had reported as to what was a fair number of hours per week, the Government had forced the 48-hour week on to the railway service, though the locomotive men were btill working 44 hours per week. He admitted that the contract had been broken by the men, and that it was "at large": but t.he auestion was whether the Government, while the board was still considering the question of hours, should have required the men to go back to the 48 hours week. There was clearly warrant for saying that the work done by the railway men in the service to-day carried great responsibility, many of them being responsible not only for property, but for life. "Public safety” was tho first watchword for the railway workers. In the traffic, loco, and maintenance departments their work vas onerous in the highest degree. It was no exaggeration to say that it was hazardous and difficult. There was no doubt, in his opinion, that the 44-liours Week had worked well. He did not 1 now whether it was thft intention of tho Government to curtail the number of railway employees by dismissing, men now that the 48-hoiy week was in force; hut he did know that it was proposed to pay the men from 7s to 8s a week more, and that would come to a considerable sum of money—not less than £250,000 a year. So that it was very hard to believe that any saving would result from the 48 hours policy. The strike, in his opinion, was most regrettable, but he and his party believed that the wages and hours the men were asking for were justified; and he, therefore, moved 'his amendment. RAILWAY MINISTER-REPLIES. The Hon. J. G. Coates (Minister for Railways) replied that the 44 hours week had really in practice meant a 48 hours week with four hours paid for as overtime. So there was not very much difference between the 44 and the 48 hour week. Mr Wilford interjeoted that the 44 'hour week had worked all right for four years. The Minister: And what Position have we got into with our railways? With the highest freights and fares known in the history of the country, and with fewer train miles run, we are only £60,000 ahead after paying 3J per cent.; and everybody is asking for a reduction in freights and fares and an increase of mileage. The plain matter of fact was, he added, that the overhead expenses of the railway system were so heavy that the department was unable to move In the directions desired by the public. Since 1919 the staff had increased by | 4000 to 5000 men, and the train mileage j had been reduced. That prevented the

department giving what the people were asking for. AT EXPENSE OF MEN? Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): At the expense of the men ! The Minister: Not altogether; reorganisation is quite necessary, I admit, and it is being carried out. It had been, he remarked, a 44-hour week, with, an 8-liour day, which meant that if a man worked one hour over eight on any day he was paid rate and a quarter for that hour. Mr H. Smith (Taranaki): Not now. The Minister: No; it is now a 48-hour week, with overtime after 48 hours. Under the previous system, if a man had worked, over 44 liourj in any week he got back time for everything worked beyond the 44 hours, which meant that with the 8hour day provision he often got back the oveitime the Government had paid for; so that it paid rate and a half and got no return. The hon. gentleman had mentioned that the men had gone back at the 48hour week. Mr Wilford : They went back to work, and then you forced the 48 hours on them. The Minister: The men made an unconditional surrender. They were told that they had to go back to work before we would talk to them? and then they were told that they would have to go back to the 48 hours a week. Mr Connelly (president of the A.S.R.S.) said he agreed tq the 48 hours, though he did not like it. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Did he agree to over eight hours a day? That is where you went back on them. The Minister contended that the executive understood that they were to go back to tho 48-hour week, not to the 8hour day. To have allowed it otherwise would nave added very greatly to the overhead chargee on the railways. Mr Fraser: It is one of the rottenest things I have known! The Minister maintained that Mr Connelly and Mr Mack (general secretary to the A.S.R.S.) had understood the position thoroughly. It had been suggested that under the 48-hour system the department i could roster a man at 48 hours straight away without a 6pell; but no man in his senses would do that. SURPLUS NOT TO BE DISMISSED. If the department got the 48-hour week, it was quite true that it would have a surplus of men, but it was not intended simply to strike off, say, 2000 men without any clhsideration for the men. The ordinary come and go of men in the department was 1500 to 2000 a year; so that it was safe to say that inside of twelve months there would ordinarily be 1200 to 1500 men coming out of the branch in question. In addition, improvement works were being inaugurated, which could absorb quite a number of these men. Therefore he did not anticipate any difficulty at all in that connection; and it was not intended to put out 1200 to 1500 men. The basic wage, as a result of the 48 hours' system had gone up from •£3 19s to 7s 3d a week. Mr Wilford: Whet I asked was what per annum it would octet. The Minister: Approximately, it would cost ' what the non. gentleman said—something over .£200,000 a year. But that, he added, would .be met by transferring the men as far as possible to improvement works, thus making the wages capital expenditure; and a® ho had pointed' out twelve months would absorb the greatest, part of these men. The Railway Department had got to do something, because it was up against all sorts of competition—by river, by sea, and by motor vehicles; and if the department was asked t-o carry a load which would make it impossible for it to compete, then no public man was worth his salt who did not draw attention to it and take such steps as would prevent a national loss being sustained’. If the old C'tion had continued,it would only have l a question of fivo years, and not 2000, but 5000 men would have had' to lo6e their jobs because of this competition. Mr J. R. Corrigan (Patea): You axe making it worse by your highways policy The Minister: That is so; but if the traffic is more easily carried on by road than by rail, why should it not go by road? He pointed out, however, that the cost of upkeep of the railways was .£350 per mile per annum, while the roads were kept up by the ratepayers, not by the users of the roads. It was only fair, therefore, that motor vehicles should contribute largely to the upkeep of the roads. But, undoubtedly, there were 6ome districts of small population which could be more economically served by petrol-driven vehicles than by the railways, and why should they not he so served? RAILWAY ''MILLIONAIRES?" They were told that they were trying to give cheaper fares and more mileage at tile expense of the men; but that was not the case. Instead! of reducing wages, the minimum wage had been increased from «£3 9s to <£4 7s 3d per week, though it was true that the men were working longer hours. Mr A. L. Monteitli (Wellington East): Work them all night and they’ll be millionaires. (Laughter.) The Minister pointed out that in recent years the annual cost to the depart-

ment of wages alone had increased by £1, 300,000.