RAILWAYMEN’S HOURS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16458, 17 June 1924, Page 6

RAILWAYMEN’S HOURS.

AFTER-STRIKE DEVELOPMENTS. MINISTER ACCUSED OF BREAKING FAITH. (Special to the Herald.) WELLINGTON, this day. A stronjr pretest against the way in which railwayman lost their 44-hour week and eight-hour day was made by Mr. Connelly, president of the Amalgamated Society, when concluding iiis opening address before the wages tribunal, presided over by Mr. Justice Fraser. The society’,s claims, said Mr. Connelly, were now amended to one, of 44 hours weekly, the eight-hour day, and payment at present rates for 48 hours, which would be equivalent to an increase of about 62 per cent, on pre-war wages, and almost in line with that which statistical evidence would support. Abolition of the 44-hour week and eight-hour day, lie said,-took place within one, month of the Court sitting to consider the claims of the men, although the Minister of Railways was well aware that the Court would be set up. The conditions of settlement of the strike on April 29 contained no such stipulations, ihe interpretation of this letter being that the only condition for the continuation of negotiations on the society’s demands was the resumption of work. Subsequently the Minister mentioned at an interview that he had power under the regulations to put a 48-liour week into operation, but would not do so until the matter had been reviewed by this tribunal, this assurance being repeated on May 16; but on May 26 the extended week was put into operation without reference to the men’s organisation. When the Minister was interviewed on May 31, he was asked if any further .interference with the men’s conditions would take place prior to the sitting of the tribunal, and lie gave an assurance that nothing further than four hours’ extension of the week was intended. The society then accepted a tribunal!, but within 48 Hours they were, informed that the eight-hour'day had gone, making a further inroad on the men’s conditions and anticipating any decision of the tribunal. “The actions of the Minister and the Department subsequent to the calling off of the strike,” said Mr. Connelly, “have not been consonant with the principles of strict justice, fair play, and straight dealing. What has been done amounts, in our opinion, to victimisation, although there was an honorable understanding that there would be no victimisation. "if the Minister and’ Department contend that it does not amount to victimisation. they cannot deny that they have shown a most indecent haste in interfering with the men's conditions. They have usurped the functions of the Court in the most important matters to come before, it.”