THE OTIRA STRIKE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume V, Issue 1276, 15 March 1918, Page 9

THE OTIRA STRIKE.

POSITION OF THE UNION, LETTER TO FEDERATION SECRETARY. Mr H. Hunter, secretary to the United Federation of Labour, has received the following letter from the secretary of the Otira Union — “I will endeavour to place before you the facts of the dispute. We have at Otira a class of work for which boys or disabled men have always been employed. Their duties were to hand out the carbide to the men going on shift, attend to the telephone exchange (which is erected in the lamp-room), also attend to a small steam boiler that heats the water for bathroom and wash basins, and also dries the clothes in change-rooms. The rate of pay was fixed by verbal agreement, some three or four years back, at 7/- per day, a boy’s wages. Since this agreement was made the management have had erected a steam plant for the purpose of driving the generator for the electric power during the dry weather. This plant is entirely separate from the lamproom, and impossible to be attended to by the boy who is on shift in the lamp-room. A few weeks ago the department found it necessary to bring the steam power plant into use. To that plant there must be a certificated engine-driver and fireman. To get three firemen they took one man from inside the tunnel, one strong lad from the engineers’ shop, and one boy IGi years of age from the lamp-room, compelling the other lamp-room boys to work 12 hours each. The boy, when called on, went to the steam-plant and worked about two hours on the firing. It having started to rain the steam was shut down, the boy finishing up his shift cleaning up, etc., next shift going back to his own job in the lamp-room. During that two hours firing the boiler, the lad found he would be unable to undertake the heavier work.

“Work went on for one or two days. The electric power again got slack, which meant starting the steam-plant away again. It started afternoon shift. When the hoy came on in lamp-room at 12 o’clock night shift, he found that the afternoon shift-mate had got orders to work 12 hours, and that he had to go into the power-house firing again. Now, as I said before, this boy, Fell, had found he was unable to do the work. He went and saw the engineer in charge of that work and informed him that he could not undertake the work in the powerhouse, firing the boiler, as it was heavier work than that he was engaged for. The engineer then told him that unless he did the firing he was no good to him, and he would be dismissed. He then told him to go home again. As this happened in the middle of the night, and all the bosses were in bed, the lad went home.

Next day he went up to the works to report, and find out if he really was dismissed. The engineer inquired the reason why he refused to fire the boiler in the steam-plant. The boy explained that the work was too heavy, as he had a crippled hand and could not do a man’s work. After a consultation with the resident engineer, the assistantengineer then told the boy to go back into the lamp-room on his own job, but at the same time he used a threat that he would be dismissed again, on the first chance they had of getting another boy, unless he did the firing. All went well and the boy went on working as usual for about three weeks. One day he was informed that as he could not do the work required his services would be no longer required. The boy placed the matter in the hands of the union.

“The first step taken by the President of the union was to interview the assistant-engineer who has charge of the lamp-room, and find out his reasons for sacking the boy. He told him that he was dismissed because he was unable to do the firing on the steam-plant. There was no other complaint laid against the lad and they were satisfied that he was quite capable of attending to all duties as lamp-room attendant, but the boss held that he was entitled to put the boy to any other work he wanted doing, irrespective of what class of labour it was or what wages he paid. “Now, to put the stand of the union in a nutshell, we hold that it takes three boys or crippled men to man the lamp-room, working eight hours each. We strongly object to them taking one away to do work in other places and compelling the other two to work 12 hours a day. This is the case we put before Mr Furkert, and from that the union will not budge. “This lamp-room has always been manned by men who have been maimed in one way or another. At one time there were three onelegged men employed. After that there was one man with one leg and two men who had each lost the sight of one eye, all injured on the works. At the time of the trouble there was one of the men with the one eye, one incapable of taking on any work that would require a little knowledge to attend to, and the third one this boy, 164 years of age, with one hand deformed. “We hold that no man who has only one eye, or boys, should be called on to work over an eight-hour day, nor should we stand by and see the Government put the boy to do a man’s work.—l am, yours for justice, J. McLaren (secretarl).