RAILWAY OFFICERS

Southland Times, Issue 19279, 25 June 1924, Page 5

RAILWAY OFFICERS

YESTERDAY’S BUSINESS. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 24. At the annual conference of the Railway Officers’ Institute permission was granted the Dunedin and Invercargill branches to have their names changed to Otago and Southland respectively. North Canterbury asked that permission be granted branches to approach and place before their district officers items of local importance not affecting the policy of the Institute, but permission was refused. The Auckland branch was responsible for the following remit: That the Conference obtain the names of members of the Executive who belong to both the R. 0.1. and the A.S.R.S., and that all members of the Executive shall be members of the permanent staff and belong to the R. 0.1. only. After a long discussion the remit was amended and passed in the following form: 'That membership of the R. 0.1. be conditional on the applicant for membership not being a member of the A.S.RB. or E.F.CA. The Wellington branch moved as follows : That the Conference instructs ail branches to obtain evidence on the attitude of its members towards any industrial crisis that may arise, with a view to giving the Executive Committee definite authority as to how it is to act in the future. (Note: During the last two strikes in the service the Executive Committee were in the position of being unable to definitely instruct members as to their course of action.)

The Wellington branch submitted the following statement in support of the foregoing remit: Firstly, if the R. 0.1. is to continue as a body with either authority of dignity, it is essential that every endeavour be made to enrol and retain every possible member of the First Division on its rolls of membership; secondly, every member must have the opportunity of stating his opinion on such a question, ii/ order to give the Executive Committee definite - authority to take such line of action as may be necessary. In the event of no definite authority being forthcoming from members, an Executive can only adopt the attitude of having no recommendation to make to the members. The taking of any stand without authority can only lead to the breaking of members from the Institute and its eventual disintegration. Thirdly, members in considering such a question as this, will require to do so from the point of view that they are as civil servants responsible for the best performance of their duties to the whole of the community, and not to any particular section of the community with whom an organisation may be in temporary disagreement. Direct action assails the whole community. Fourthly, when considering whether we can support either activity or passively any organisation using other than constitutional methods in obtaining redress, the question arises as to whether we axe to do so blindly or have some voice in the preliminaries. Fiftly, junior members in considering the question should take into account the position of the senior members, among whom they eventually hope to be numbered. Failure to do so may bring about an exodus of such seniors from the Institute, with a corresponding loss of prestige. Sixthly, the attitude of friendly neutrality is one of grave danger and one which in our case would not stand any degree of pressure, and its failure would only draw upon the Institute general contempt and bring an end to its existence. Discussion was still proceeding when the Conference rose.