THE HARBOR BOARD.

NZ Truth, Issue 93, 30 March 1907, Page 4

THE HARBOR BOARD.

SACKS TWO OLD EMPLOYEES.

Allegations of " Graft."

They seem to run things m a very, high-handed sort of way at the Harbor Board works. ' It seems tbat there is some sort of an order that if an employee sees anything -wrong, or what he deems to be wrong, he miust report the matter to the secretary. No man likes doing that sort of thing, but it sometimes happens that when a man is not getting fair play himself, and sees gross favoritism being extended to numerous wasters, to his own disadvantage, he feels inclined to abide toy the rule and report to the boss what is really going on. This was what happened down there the other day. 'A complaint was made by three men that they were not receiving justice at the hands of the foreman, and they further alleged that certain cronk— very cronk— practises were being perpetrated by some of the men with the foreman's knowledge and consent, if not by his actual orders. The. complaint was laid, eventually, before the chairman of the Board, and it was decided that an enquiry be held. The enquiry, however, was conducted m such a way that the men were not given a fair chance to prove their case. Anyhow, the charges .brought forward were found to be unproved, and there it jwoiild seem the matter would have droned. But the Board was not taking^finy thing like that. Two of the men, tf '^oth pi whom had been m the Boar^W* service for eight years, were SACKED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, The cause of their dismissal /could not have been other than the fact that they brought forward these obarges against the foreman and certain of the other employees. Now, what is the use of having a , rule supposed to compel men to report anything they consider to be wrong, if the men, who,' m self-defence, report are to be sacked. The very idea of the thing is absurd. These men have been m -Hie employ of the Board long enough to prove that their dismissal was not -due to any want of ability -or unsteadiness of character. It was due pure and simple to the fact that they made certain reports, and those reports were not upheld toy the trio .who adjudicated thereupon. This paper does not pretend ,to know what the evidence adduced was. or for what reason the inquiry commission found the charges to be baseless, but it does know that the charges' were of a most grave character—practically accusing the higher officials of "iscrnft" similar to that exposed by Sinclair m Ms book "The Jungle." Although no direct complaint had been made to the Board until the case under notice was . brought forward, there have been rumors of "graft" among the Harbor Board ! officials for some time. In the .face of this it would have been infinitely more to the credit of, the Board if the enquiry toad been made open, and the two men who made -.the complaint had not been sacked so unceremoniously.