RAILWAY OFFICERS STATE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE STRIKE

Wanganui Chronicle, 23 December 1950, Page 6

RAILWAY OFFICERS STATE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE STRIKE

WELLINGTON, Yesterday (PA).— The attitude of the New Zealand Railway Officers’ Institute (representing the members of the salaried division of the department) in connection with the national rail strike was outlined, today by Mr A. R. Tarr, general sec-, retary of the organisation. Mr Tarr stated that his executive! committee had instructed branches. throughout the Dominion that its I members would perform only normal salaried division duties as carried out prior to the stoppage and should refrain from performing work normally carried out by general division employees. In the normal course of duty some salaried division employees in certain localities carry out work of a general division nature and they would therefore be in order in carrying out these duties in the same manner and to the same extent as they had done before the strike. They would not, however, undertake any extension of these duties which could be interpreted as having a strike-breaking effect. Exceptions to this directive to members would be made in certain cases where security of buildings and equipment is involved. The New Zealand Railway Officers Institute adhered strictly to constitutional procedure. This adherence to constitutional methods did not, however, imply that the organisation was satisfied with the recent decisions ot| the Railway Industrial Tribunal alongj with the general division organisations. The institute has repeatedly and persistently advocated some justifiable recognition of the peculiar characteristics of railway employment, involving as it did irregular hours of duty, the necessity of transporting goods' and people at all hours ol the day | and night in all weather conditions,, and, particularly, the responsibility; for the safety of the travelling public. The institute shared the attitude ol the general division organisations that railwaymen were not equitably remunerated in relation to the responsibility they were called upon to carry, and "we ft re as equally concerned as they with the soaring cost of living and the diminishing purchasing power of railway employees generally.” The issues before the Government and the Railways Industrial Tribunal were perfectly clear. Either employment in the railway service had to be made sufficiently attractive to ensure a sufficient intake and retention o the ri?ht type of employee, or a gradual and progressive deterioration in the standard of railway operation and services had to be faced. “It is worthy of mention that we have up to the present refrained from participation in the discussions on the tribunal decisions between the Government and the general division organisations. The purpose behind our abstention has been to avoid any complication which could have precipitated the direct action which has unfortunately eventuated, or which could have worsened the atmosphere in which the discussions took place. “At this stage, however, we are advising the Minister of Railways that in the event of any further discussions taking place between the Government and the other railway service organisations that could materially affect the relative position of our membership in regard to rates of remuneration and conditions, we expect to be fully consulted on such issues. ’