TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21414, 5 March 1935, Page 7

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

APPOINTMENT OF MR G. MANNING MR C. E. JONES'S | CRITICISM i Contending that he himself should j have been appointed to the position of employers' representative on the Tramway Appeal Board, Mr C. E. Jones, at the meeting of the Christchurch Tramway Board yesterday afternoon, questioned the wisdom of appointing Mr G. Manning to represent the employers when by calling he was an advocate of employees. He urged Mr Manning, as the board's representative on a judicial body, to dissociate himself from any bias that some members of the board might have against a certain section of tramway employees. The works and traffic committee, which comprises the whole of the board, reported that Mr Manning had been appointed to the Appeal Board. This appointment was to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of the Hon. W. Hayward, M.L.C. Mr Jones said that he had refrained from voting at the meeting at which Mr Manning had been appointed. He did not oppose Mr Manning's appointment, and he did not wish any members of the board to misunderstand his position. He felt sure that it would have been far better if some other person had been chosen. The board had chosen the next best man, but not the best. It would have been a graceful gesture, he suggested, if he (Mr Jones) had been appointed to the position. "You may smile," said Mr Jones, when laughter followed his statement.

The chairman (Mr E. J. Howard, M.P.): I am smiling because we missed you. Mr Manning was quite a good man to represent the board, continued Mr Jones, but it must be" borne in mind that he was on the Appeal Board to represent the employers, and that the employees had their representative in Mr Webb. It was essentially a judicial body, with a magistrate as chairman. "I consider that we are placing too great a responsibility on Mr Manning in asking him to carry out his duties in an unbiased manner as a representative of the employers when by avocation he is a representative of employees in other departments of the community life," said Mr Jones. "I do not say that he cannot serve two masters, but I know that a certain section of the employees of this board have not been regarded from, the most favourable point of view by some of the board members," continued Mr Jones, who added that he himself was quite unbiased. "The public will be watching this appointment, which is a very important ona from every point of view, and Mr Manning has an opportunity of showing that he is a true member of this board and, I say it with all respect, above Labour influences." He hoped that Mr Manning would realise his great responsibility to treat every employee of the board with the same degree of fairness. He was an educated man and a capable man, and the speaker knew that he would watch the board's interests from the financial point of view. Board members had been biased in the past, and Mr Jones hoped that Mr Manning would dissociate himself from any such suggestion when representing the board on the Tramway Appeal Board. There was no discussion, Mr Howard putting the adoption of the report to the meeting immediately Mr Jones sat down.