RAILWAYMEN’S DISMISSAL

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1931, Page 7

RAILWAYMEN’S DISMISSAL

AUTHORITY of the board MINISTER EXPLAINS ATTITUDE. SUGGESTED OVER-RIDING DENIED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. A denial that any statement by him could be interpreted as indicating that he would over-ride the Railways Board concerning the rationing of work among railway employees as an alternative to dismissals was made by the Minister of Public Works, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, this evening when he replied to assertions made at a mass meeting of railwaymen at the Addington workshops last week. About 200 members of the Addington branch of the Railway Tradesmen’s Association attended a meeting at which a protest was. made against “indiscriminate retrenchment of long-term casual workers.” In a letter read at the meeting Mr. 9. Ingram, general secretary of the association, said that the board was opposed to rationing, but that Mr. Coates, realising there was absolutely nothing offering for men outside, was in favour of it as the only solution of the difficulty, and that he had told Mr. Ingram definitely, that the men could be saved only through agreeing to ration work. “It has been brought to my notice that the secretary of the New Zealand Railway Tradesmen's Association, has been reported in addressing its members as having stated that Mr. Coates has suggested that he would over-ride the Railways Board,” the Minister said. “I wish it to be clearly understood • that as one of those who favoured the board system I have made no such remark, and no intimation in any interview and no.; words of mine used at any time could be so interpreted. I firmly believe that: the board is a sound system of controlling : the railways; also it is far from my wish that anyone should interpret remarks of mine to mean that I in any way or at any time desire to usurp the duties of others, and particularly those of any colleague of mine. '

“It is true that Mr. Ingram, who has repeatedly sought interviews, was advised by me in the presence of a State official, when asking me to makeprovision'for the men who were under notice, that so difficult was the general financial position that lie might well place before his members an alternative to dismissals—that of rationing some of the work. I was unable to inform Mr. Ingram whether the Minister, the board or the management would favour such a proposal, but I felt that if he had such a plan it was his duty first to consult the men concerned and then to approach the department with a definite and workable scheme.”