A TRAMWAY CASE

Southland Times, Issue 17791, 21 July 1916, Page 5

A TRAMWAY CASE

EMPLOYEES’ UNION APPEALS. At last night’s meeting of the Town Council a letter was received from tho secretary of the Invercargill Tramway Union, who wrote objecting to the dismissal of William Miller, overhead, lineman, on the grounds that Mr Miller had seniority of service over a number of employees still retained by the deportment; that although deletion of tha staff was necessary Mr Miller should not be commenced with as he was a married man with a family and had served the Empire in the merchant service, and during the Boer war, aad was again ready to respond to the call of Empire. At present there were employees in tha service, men who had recently married. Cr Bain moved that the matter be reported to the Tramways Committee with power to act. Owing to . slackness of work Mr Miller had been given notice, and the Union had given notice of appeal. The Finance Committee had recommended that heads of departments inenr as little expense as possible, so that men could not be kept on if there was no work for them to do. As the Union had appealed the matter would have to go before the Appeal Board. Cr Dunlop seconded the motion. Cr O’Byrne objected to the committee being given power to act. They should report to the Council, and he moved an amendment to that effect. It was not the dismissing of a man from the service that the Union was complaining about, but that this particular man. should be dismissed, while other with shorter service were retained, and the Union was quite right in objecting. Mr Miller was probably the only member of the Union in that particular branch of tramway work, and the manager had a set on men who belonged to the Union. The Mayor took exception to Mr O’Byrne’s last statement. Mr O’Byrne said that that sort of thing was going on at present, not onlyin the tramway service, but all over the world. It was only fair that the matter should be gone into, in order that the Council would not be landed into expense as on previous occasions. Mr Millar was a most capable man, and hod done good service for the Empire, and tlie manager and the inspector had each given him a first-class recommendation as a workman. It seemed strange that they should do that, and then put him off. and keep others on. The Mayor said that he had enquired into the case, and he understood that there was no more work of the particular kind that Hr Miller had been engaged to do. Mr O’Byrne said that he saw three men the other day doing the kind of work referred to: wires were always being patched. The Union thought that the man had been put off because he was a member of the Union, and it certainly looked like it, and that favourites had been retained. Cr Petrie seconded the amendment, and Cr Lennie supported it. Cr Lillicrap said that he had no objection to the amendment. Cr Bain said that Cr O’Byrnc had shown that the manager had no set against Mr Miller, as he had given him a testimonial. So far as the speaker understood, the man was a casual, and not a permanent hand, and the manager had informed him in February last that work was getting slack, and probably his services ■would ha.ve to bo dispensed with, as the Council was not solng on with extensions, and was not likely to do «o while the war was on. The man was Kept on until quite recently, and a testimonial had been given to him in order to assist him to get other work, a thing the manager was not in the habit of doing No hardship had been inflicted, no feeling against the man had been shown, but every consideration was given him. The senior man was now doing Mr Miller’s work. If men were to be employed for whom they had no use, that was for the Council to say, and they would require to amend their previous resolution. It did not matter to the speaker, who would not know tha man if he met him in the street. The amendment was carried.