COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19970, 11 December 1926, Page 15

COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEES.

TF AMWAYMEN AGGRIEVED, A STRONGLY-WORDED LETTER. (Special to Daili Timm.) AUCKLAND, December 10. At a meeting of the City Council last evening a letter was received from the secretary of the Auckland Tramways and Omnibus Employees’ Union, who stated that he was directed at a meeting of the committee of his union to protest against what was described as the unfair and partial attitude adopted by the Mayor in refusing to extend to the tramway workers employed in the permanent way and workshops departments the privilege of a halfholiday on Wednesday, November 17, the occasion of People's Day at the Royal Show. The writer stated that the Mayor's action in regard to the employees was unjust, and especially so as it had come to their knowledge that the staffs at the Town Hall and the tramway office were granted a holiday, thus showing preferential treatment. • Immediately the item was reached on the order paper Mr J. A C. Allum said ho considered the letter should not be received as, in his opinion, the terms in which the protest was couched were an insult to the Mayor and councillors. He moved that the letter be not received. Several other councillors expressed similar views, but Mr Phelan, while he expressed no opinion on the language used in the letter, considered that the men had a just grievance. If the Mayor asked business firms to close and observe a halfholiday on People’s Day, then the council’s own employees should be given the privilege he asked other employers to concede. Mr Bloodwortb said he could not see what all the commotion was about. Unless the statements in the letter were untrue he could not see that there was any reflection upon the Mayor. He thought the matter should be referred to the Tramways Committee to make inquiries, and he moved accordingly. After some further discusion Mr Bloodworth’s amendment was put and lost, and the motion that the letter be not received until couched in more respectful terms was carried Later in the evening, when the question of accepting a tender for the construction of an extension of the Huia pipe line had been considered, Mr Bloodworm asked if there were not a letter from an Auckland firm and an unsuccessful tenderer, and whether it was going to be read. A letter from John Burns and Company, which referred to the tender for the supply of steel pipes, was then read, whereupon Miss Melville expressed regret that it should have been sent. A copy had been sent to her, and she threw it in the waste paper basket, which, she said, was the treatment it deserved. At the same time, she would like to know how the firm had obtained certain information before it was placed before the council. , , , Mr Bloodworth wanted to know what the council was going to do with the letter and whether it would be received. He said that this letter contained implications against the council. but, strangely enough, nobody had raised a protest or suggested that it should not be received. He moved that it be received and that a reply be sent containing the council’s decision in the acceptance of a tender. Mr Allum said there was a difference in the two letters. One was a reflection upon the Mayor, and the other was sent to the whole council. Mr Bloodworth: The difference is that one was sent from John Burns and Company and the other from a workers’ union. Crs Entrican and Eady took the view that the letter was from a citizen and a ratepayer who was entitled to take the council to task. Mr Bloodworth’s motion was then put and carried.