TRAMWAYMEN HIT OUT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 749, 23 August 1929, Page 1

TRAMWAYMEN HIT OUT

Transport Board’s Challenge “INTERFERENCE WITH UNION” “11IHEN the members of the Transport Board, who voted W in favour of negotiations being broken off, fall in line with those who are desirous of good fellowship existing between the hoard and the men, so soon will they find that tolerance and diplomacy is better than dictatorship and dogmatism in getting the best out of the men, and also that they will receive the heartiest support of the union.” " This is the statement of the Tramways and Omnibus Employees’ Union, summing up its attitude toward the Transport Board in connection with the deadlock which lias strained the relations between the board and the men for the last six weeks. Last Tuesday the board resolved to terminate negotiations for a new agreement and recalled its assessors.

rpHE board declined also to hold further communication with the union “until it is prepared to adopt a proper attitude.” The difference between the board and the union arose over the board’s step in calling on the union to expunge from its records a minute concerning the giving of evidence my members of the union on behalf of the management in appeal cases before the special appeal board. The union has made a considered reply and also intimates that when official communication has been received regarding the board’s resolution the union will consider what action it will take. “VINDICTIVENESS” “We sincerely regret the action taken by the board by a vote of 6 to 4 and feel that If prejudice and vindictiveness on the part of some members had not entered into the matter the board would have not acted in such a manner,” says the statement. “We must state that certain members and especially the chairman, Mr. J. A. C. Allum, appear to lack that sense of judgment and • diplomacy so much required 'by employers of labour on a large scale. in dealing with the men under them through their organisation. ■' '' “In referring to the alleged interference by the Tramways Union we might point out the attitude adopted by Mr. Alluin when the representatives of the union waited upon the Transport Board, in dictatorially refusing to; listen to any explanation as to the reasons why the disputed minute appears on the books of the union, i3bijs tlxdt does not tend to amicable .'relation between the board and its employees and we feel that so long as Mr. Allum maintains this attitude it will be impossible for the work of the board to- be carried out in the best interests of the board and the general public. NO INTIMIDATION “The union decided to view certain actions by its members with disapproval and apprehension. This the union had the right to do, and has politely informed the board that it cannot allow any interference with the union’s domestic affairs. “The resolution in question did not intimidate men from giving evidence, but only viewed with disapproval their action in not submitting to the union .the nature of the evidence they wished to give. In deciding to support the appeal of Massicks, the union naturally must have the whole of the evidence that could be tendered by its members to enable it to come to a right decision as to whether the appeal was desirable or otherwise. “By the board’s attitude in demanding that the resolution of the union should be expunged and another put in its place, dictated by the board, it is our considered opinion that instead of the union intimidating its members —which the union denies —the boot is on the other foot. No person knows better than the chairman that the board, in the first place, made a grave mistake in demanding the union committee to appear before it, and in endeavouring to intimidate it into submission. POSER FOR THE BOARD “He also knows there is nothing to arbitrate upon, as the resolution was a domestic affair quite within the law, and should not even have been discussed by the board. “However, if the board, or several members, are- keen on submitting something to arbitrate upon, we would consider submitting the following:—‘Could the Auckland Transport Board interfere in the domestic affairs of a trade union?’ “Why the assessors of the board should be recalled we do not know. The union’s assessors have met the board assessors and all conferences have been held in the best of spirit and certain clauses have been tentatively agreed upon. “We have had one example of the dictatorial attitude of the chairman of

the Transport Board, and therefore have some idea of what his idea of a proper atttitude -would be. It would appeal- to us that Mr. Ailum’s desire is to drive the tramwaymen into submission to his dictates, but we would point out that this attitude will not get him anywhere,” concludes the statement. MR. ALLUM REPLIES EFFORTS FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT REPULSED ATTEMPT TO EMBARRASS BOARD “As one who has employed a considerable number of men over a long period of years, I am quite in favour of unionism, and quite aware of the value of co-operation and harmony between employer and employee,” says Mr. Allum, in a reply to the union. “In the matter in dispute, I have gone a long way beyond what any private employer would do to secure that harmony, and the responsibility for the present position must rest upon the union, which has not made one single advance at any stage. REFUSAL AND DISMISSAL “The union’s resolution appears to have only one object, namely, to discourage if not to prevent members of the union who may be in a position to give evidence from giving evidence in cases similar to Massicks’s. or even in any cases at all which come before the courts, or inquiries conducted by the management,” Mr. Allum continues. “If any employee of the board refused to give evidence in such a case, there can he no doubt that the board would be justified in instantly dismissing him, and it can hardly be suggested that a deliberate attempt on the part of the union to induce its members to act in that way was merely an internal or domestic affair of the union with which the Transport Board had no concern. The chairman proceeds to state that the board had endeavoured to have the trouble settled by arbitration. “Unfortunately, the union refused even to consider this suggestion and the board has been compelled to take the only course which seems open to any employer under similar circumstances, particularly when all its efforts at amicable settlement have been repulsed,” states Mr. Allum. “As the union’s statement intimates that the union would now be prepared to consider submitting to arbitration the question of the board’s right to interfere, this seems to indicate a desire to reverse its previous refusal to agree to arbitration, and if the union will approach the board with a suggestion to refer the whole matter to arbitration I should recommend the board to renew its offer, and I think it would agree. CHARGES NOT JUSTIFIED “There is no ground for the union’s allegations of vindictiveness and prejudice and that the charges made against me of lacking that sense of Judgment and diplomacy so much required by employers of labour on a large scale in dealing with the men under them through their organisation, are made to conceal a determined attempt on the part of the union to embarrass the board in a matter which vitally concerns the interests, not only of the board and its employees, but of that vast majority of the public, with which the board and its employees must come in contact. “There are over 300 men employed by the board who are not covered by the agreement with the Tramways Union and the majority of these work under some eight different agreements or awards negotiated with their unions and with none of these has the board ever had any trouble.”