BUS DRIVERS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20234, 19 February 1934, Page 7

BUS DRIVERS.

Reinstatement Urged by Residents. DEPUTATION TO BOAP.D. A largely-signed petition urging that four trolley bus drivers who were disrated by the Tramway Board should be reinstated in their former positions was presented to the Christchurch Tramway Board this afternoon on behalf of a deputation of North Beach residents by Mr E. G. Hewitt. A sensation was caused w T hen a number of the signatures were challenged by Mr E. J. Howard, M.P.. and Mr Hewitt admitted that it appeared that they had been written by the same person. The petition stated that the drivers had been courteous and obliging, and the residents felt that they owed them a substantial obligation in view of the way in which they carried on the service during the strike at no little risk to themselves. The petition recorded the protest of the residents at the reduction in status suffered by these men, and asked in the interests of the drivers and the users of the buses that they be reinstated. In presenting the petition, Mr Hewitt said that the users of the service very strongly objected to the drivers being punished for their loyalty to the passengers. “ We are not interested in any way in the Tramway Union, or its decisions, but we are interested in these men, who, by their loyalty, popularity, courteous manner, promptitude and efficiency have made us, as -Users, always feel safe,” he said. “ While we do not want to dictate a policy to the board we feel that, as users of the service, you will see your way to reinstate these men to our particular route.” The men who thought differently from those who decided to strike were now being punished for their loyalty to their employers, continued Mr Hewitt. After quoting the remarks of the arbitrator (Mr A. T. Donnelly) that the “ strike was without necessity or excuse,” Mr Hewitt said that these four men's opinions must have coincided with that of Mr Donnelly and they had believed that they were justified in supporting and upholding the law o: the land. Mr Hewitt also claimed that the four men concerned had records as good as any in the service. Something was wrong when men of this type were disrated and punished because they could not see eye to eye with the Tramway Union. Provocative Speech. Interruptions were irequent during Mr Hewitt’s address, and the chairman (.the Kev J. K. Archer) remarked that the speech was highly provocative. Later he said he had never heard a speceh made which was so liable to have the opposite effect than it was intended to have. The petition itself was offensive, but not so much offensive as the speech. The board had never held any other idea but that the men were efficient. Ninety-five or 100 per cent of the other employees were m the same position. The board had never inflicted “ punishment ” as mentioned by Mr Hewitt. It was in the interests of policy that the men were dealt with. Mr Hewitt was foolish to introduce the subject of the strike. His was only one opinion. “ You talk of the loyalt-. of these men,” said Mr Archer. “ There are thousands of people in the city who want to know why these men were not loyal to their fellow-workers.” Labou• should be united and Capital should be united, and he had no admiratic.i for men who created dissension in the ranks. There were other petitions being prepared, taking quite a different view from the one before them. Mr Hewitt had made the libellous statement that there was some ulterior motive in the board’s action. He resented that statement. He never did anything with an ulterior motive. The four men had no right to any monOpolv of particular positions. There were scores of others just as equal to the positions as they were. The chairman said that he agreed that the strike was without “ necessity or excuse,” and would not have happened had there been a sensible Tramway Board in office. Question of Re-grading. The matter of re-grading was a question for the board alone, which had. a polic3 r of grading on the basis of seniority coupled with efficiency. Today, every one of the four men was in a better position than he was before the strike. “ To you and all acting with you, no matter how sincere your motives ate, and I don’t question them, as you did mine, I would say that v >ur action is directed at creating division among the board employees,” said the chairman, in pointing out that the stac had been re-raded on a seniority basis. He said that if he could, he would, as soon as possible, remedy the reduction of wages suffered bv these men. Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., questioned several signatures in the petition, and said he was prepared to submit the names to an expert in hand-writing to say that some of this© were signed by the same hand. He submitted one group of names to the chairman and described it as fraud. Mr Hewitt said it appeared as if the names were written by the same person. Mr J. Mathison said that there were, many people who signed the petition would not have done so if they were possessed of all the facts—certainly not outside teh Citizens’ Association group The chairman said the petition would be discussed by the board. Mr Hewitt said he thought the board was taking a grievous mistake. “ YYou could have told us that quite nicely,” said the chairman. Mr Howard moved that the matter be held over until the next meeting, by which time the appeals would have been decided. “ I would not like to say what is in my mind at the moment,” he said, y Mr Mathison seconded the motion, which was carried.