DECISION NOT TO BE REVERSED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18640, 18 December 1928, Page 14

DECISION NOT TO BE REVERSED.

PROTEST RECEIVED OVER CONTRACT FOR KILLING AT SOCKBURN. On the ground that the contract for the slaughtering of stock at the City Abattoir was either signed or in process of being signed, the City Council decided last night to take no action in regard to a protest from the Christchurch Master Butchers’ Association against the attitude of the council in ignoring the recommendation of the association. The letter from the association stated that the action of the council in accepting the tender of the Christchurch Co-operative Party (organised by Mr C. J. Pearce) for carrying out the slaughtering at the abattoir, was discussed at the monthly meeting of the association when the following resolution was adopted:— “That a protest be made to the Christchurch City Council against the attitude adopted by the City Council in totally ignoring the recommendation of the association with regard to the acceptance of tenders for killing at the abattoir, and accepting a tender in opposition to the wishes of the association. Further, that it be pointed out to the council that all tenders were put in on the understanding that two contractors would be appointed and that had tenderers been aware that one contract only would be let the prices of tenderers would, on the admission of the accepted tenderer, have been proportionately lower.”

Councillor F. R. Cooke, chairman of the Abattoir Committee, moved that a reply be sent to the Master Butchers’ Association to the effect that the contract was either signed or in process of being signed, and the council considered that the matter was now closed. He said that one of the master butchers at the meeting of the association had complained about the killing at the abattoir, stating that twice in a fortnight, old ewes had been sent to his shop instead of wethers which he had bought. That was the reason given by the butcher for leaving the abattoir. Some of the other butchers said they were going to leave the abattoir because of the action of the council in accepting the co-operative party’s contract, but he did not think that many would do so. He considered that the association should be informed that the council wished the controversy to end.

TROUBLE CAUSED BY DUAL CONTROL. Councillor Clyde Carr, M.P., seconded the motion. Fie expressed regret that the trouble had arisen, especially as the council had endeavoured to meet the wishes of the butchers. The results that followed the appointment of dual contractors in the past had been far from satisfactory and the manager of the abattoir had been put to a good deal of trouble owing to the dual control. However the committee had agreed to meet the wishes of the butchers to the extent of recommending the acceptance of the tender of Wootton, the oldest contractor, together with that of the co-operative party. The Master Butchers’ Association, however, would not agree to this course, but asked that the tenders of Wootton and Carr be accepted. He was sorry that the butchers had not been willing to accept the compromise offered by the committee. On that account the council had decided to accept the tender of the co-operative party only. He did not think that many butchers would leave the abattoir because of the acceptance of the co-operative party’s tender, as they would find the new system quite satisfactory.

Councillor E. H. Andrews said he thought that some correction should be made of the statements by Councillor Carr. Councillor Carr had stated that the committee had agreed to a compromise, one private contractor and one co-operative party. He denied that the master butchers had refused to accept this compromise. The party in control of the Council had been so desperately anxious to accept the cooperative party system that they had rushed the matter through without consideration. The Council were running a grave risk because, if the butchers were not satisfied with the one contractor, they would have no alternative but to go to one of the freezing companies. He wanted to know definitely whether the contract had been signed. , Was the contract signed or was it in process of being signed?

THE VITAL QUESTION. The Mayor said he did not know whether the contract had been signed or not. The vital question was whether the Council was prepared to reverse its decision? Councillor Andrews: That is so. You have made up your mind and you will not alter it. Councillor P. W. Sharpe said it was the prerogative of the City Council to say under what system the abattoir should be worked. The Council was quite prepared to listen to recommendations from the master butchers, but they were not bound to accept them, lie said that a few of 1 the master butchers had seemed to lose their heads. He was sorry for this. The Council had to consider the consumers, and so long as the Council had accepted the lowest tender, they had done their duty by the citizens of Christchurch. There was no unanimity among the master butchers themselves. Tie was given to understand that there were only ten master butchers present at the meeting of protest to the Council’s decision. AN AMENDMENT. Councillor M. E. Lyons said he could assure Councillor Sharpe that the master butchers were far from satisfied with the decision of the Council, lie considered that under the new system many of the butchers would go to the freezing works for their killing. ITe moved as an amendment to receiving the letter, that it should be referred to the Abattoir Committee with a view to giving consideration to the request that two contractors should be employed. Councillor A. W. Beaven seconded the. amendment. Councillor G. Manning said that the Labour Party stood for co-operation. Co-operation was a proved fact and was no experiment. The City Council was the final arbitrator of the matter, and the Council was not bound to accept the recommendations of the master butchers. CO-OPERATIVE PARTY’S TENDER. The Mayor said there was no understanding, no necessity and no agreement that two contractors should be appointed at the abattoir. The law merely provided that the council could not appoint more than two contractors. In reply to Mr Andrews, he read a letter from the co-operative party making an offer to do the whole of the work. Further, they stated that in the event of them being given only half of the slaughtering, they might have to ask permission to reconsider the matter. | Councillor Cooke, in reply, said that

the co-operative system was not a foolish one. It had been tried in Dunedin for a number of years, and had been a success theft:. Mr J. T. Dingle, president of the Master Butchers’ Association, was given permission to address the council. He stated that it was news to him to hear that the co-operative party had tendered for the whole of the slaughtering and had put in a price on that basis. He asked the council to consider the question of either letting a man have a space at the abattoir for killing for such butchers as would care to support him, or of letting another contract. He did not mind if both contracts were let to a co-opera-tive part}*. It was a very unfortunate business, and he hoped it "was not too late to come to an agreement. Councillor FI. T. Armstrong, M.P., said it seemed to him tenders had been called for and one accepted, and there was nothing in the specifications to say that it might be for half of the work only. The Mayor explained that tenders were called on the assumption that they were for the whole of the work. The idea of letting two contracts was purely a private arrangement. Councillor Armstrong urged the butchers to give the co-operative system a fair trial, and if it was not satisfactory, a change could be made at the end of the year. With reference to Mr Dingle’s suggestion that the council grant permission to a man to kill at the abattoir for a group of butchers, the Mayor said that application could be made to the council, but, of course, he could not say what the decision of the council would be. The amendment was defeated on a part}' vote by eleven votes to four. The motion was carried on the voices.