THE A.S.R.S.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19261, 27 August 1924, Page 8

THE A.S.R.S.

INVOLVED CRITICISM,' THE MINISTER’S REPET. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WEU.IMITOX, August 20. The current issue of the llailwaymen’s Review, referring to the railway strike, especially in regard to the discussions on the question of the reintroduction of sr.c 48-hour week, remarks: “Our members have believed all along that the Minister of Railways did not pfny the game with them after the strike, and now that trie evidence is coining to light the Ministerial dissimulation is becoming plain. To understand the position a careful study of nates is needed. When the Labour Party challenged the Government cn its treatment of our members there was a discussion in the House, when the Hon. J. G. Coates endeavoured to justify his action in forcing the -tS-honr week into operation before a wages tribunal could investigate the railway working conditions.” The Review quotes from the Minister’s speech on June 27 ns follows; “I hesitate to put info operation the -18 hours with overtime only after that, unless there is a tribunal, which you can go to afterwards or a court to which yon can go for a recommendation. When Mr Connelly stated in Auckland that, he had accepted the proposal of the Government, instructions were immediately issued to the general manager to roster his men on the 48-hour week. The argument did take place, afterwards that is true, as to what, the 48-hour week meant. I am not going to say that, the president is unknowingly misrepresenting tiie position. So far as any dealings I have had with Mr Connelly are concerned I have found him perfectly straightforward, but there is this difficulty which has cropped up, and the first, intimation I got of it was the statement that he made before the board itself.” “The Minister,” says the Review, "endeavoured to make Parliament believe that it was only when Mr Connelly announced acceptance of the tribunal that instructions to inaugurate the 48-hour week were issued. Mr Connelly’s acceptance was announced from Auckland on May 22. What has the Minister to say to the proved fact that he issued the instruction to take away the men’s 44-hour week privilege on May 14—a week before Mr Connelly’s acceptance. This damaging exposure of Ministerial lack of candour is demonstrafed by an extract from the notes of an executive council Interview with the Minister of Railways on May 31, 11)24. The Minister said: There must be some misunderstanding. lam not going to say rhere is not, hut to show you what was in my mind on the 48-hour week 1 will read you a memorandum I sent to the general manager on May 14;—

Memo., General Manager of Railways.—With reference to your interview with mo yesterday concerning the conditions of employment under which members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants are to work, pending any further action that may' be taken by the Government, I desire to confirm our verbal agreement that all men in the Second Division, with the exception of the locomotive running staff, shall forthwith bo rostered on the basis of a 48-hours week, and overtime to be paid only for time in excess of 48 hours per week. This means that tho 44-hour week and eight-hour day are at present inoperative.—J. G.

Coates, Minister of Railways. Interviewed to-night concerning tho reinstatement of the 48-hour week for the members of the A.S.R.S., the Minister said; —"In seeking to prove a case of 'dissimulation' on my part, the article has been so construed as to purpose|y evade the true position. The council of the society did interview me on May 31 to ask whether in the event of a further tribunal being agreed to any alterations in the conditions other than those which had already been given effect to would be made before such tribunal sat. I replied that no further alterations would be made, the council saw me again on June 4, and complained that since the previous interview it had received a communication from the General Manager indicating that in addition of the extension of the weekly hours to 48, the eight-hour day had also been terminated for the payment of overtime, and suggested a breach of faith on my part. In order to prove that there had been no misunderstandng so far as I was concerned 1 produced the memorandum of May 14 to the General Manager, showing dearly that the eight-hour day was to become inoperative with the reinstatement of the 48-hour week. It is perfectly true that although I had arranged with the General Manager on May 14 for the men to be rostered on the 48-hour week, I hesitated to bring it into operation until the society indicated that another tribunal would be agreed to. This is clearly proved by the fact that the alteration in hours was not nut into operation until May 26four days after ihe announcement of Mr Connolly's acceptance appeared in the press."