THE TRAMWAY AWARD.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 39, 15 June 1907, Page 2

THE TRAMWAY AWARD.

Arthur Rosser Achieves Another Failure.

THE award given by the Arbitration Court in the case of the electric tramway employees scarcely bears oat the boast {of Mr Arthur Rosser that a change has come about as a result of which the employers will have to take their gruel patiently. As far as we are able to see, and we have examined the award very closely, there is no gruel in it for the employers. The motormen and conductors asked for increased wages, but increased wages have not been granted to them, and their claims in regard to working hours and overtime rates have also beenignored. The only concessions are that the men shall be paid while waiting at sports, that time allowance shall be given to the men while travelling from car to depdt at the conclusion of a shift, and that seats shall be provided for motormen. These were all reasonable requests, and were actually ofiered by the Company six months ago, without the necessity of appealing to the Court, to say nothing of greater concessions, including holidays.

But to return to Mr Arthur Rosser, who is a paid advocate in these disputes, and has a pecuniary interest in bringing them before the Court. If we mistake not, Mr Arthur Rosser told the motormen and conductors that they had a sound and substantial claim for higher wages and other considerable concessions. Certainly, he contended before the Arbitration Court that the claims of the men were fully warranted by the conditions of their employment. Added to this, he publicly boasted that a change had come about in the constitution of the Court as the result of which the employers would have to take their gruel patiently. Therefore, according to Arthur Rosser himself, all the conditions were in his favour. The cUirns were just, and the Court was favourable to the men and prepared to ladle out gruel to the employers.

Why, then, did Arthur Rosser not achieve a victory for the men ? On his own showing, the fault lay with himself. It was precisely the same with the case of the miners at Wai hi. The claims of the men in the Wai hi mine to higher wages were sound, the Court was, to quote Arthur Rosser's sentiments, prepared to give the em-

ployers gruel, and yet Mr Bosser did not gain any advantage for the miners. Can Mr Bosser axplain these failures ? Can the trades unions concerned explain them? The conditions of the claim were in their favour, and the feeling of the Court was supposed to be equally so ; but, nevertheless, the men lost. Was the fault with Mr Arthur Rosser himself? Is he the keen, clever and tactful paid advocate that he pretends to be ?

We suggested a week or two ago that the Waihi miners would have succeeded much better if they had allowed one of their own more capable members to conduct their case before the Court. Being couversant with the technical details of mining, he would have placed the grievances of the men in a stronger light, and would probably have carried conviction to the minds of the Court. Mr Arthur Rosser evidently did not. The same argument applies to the tramway case. Mr Rosser himself holds that the men's claims were just, and that the Court was favourable, and yet he fails to convince the Court. Surely an advocate of ordinary intelligence and capacity from the ranks of the motormen and conductors would have done better. Mr Rosser, in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary, says he achieved a victory for the Waihi miners. Perhaps he also thinks he gained a victory for the motormen and conductors. Anyhow, let us hope he got his fees. That is the main consideration, after all.