Mr. Semple On Right To Transfer Men

Chronicle (Levin), 7 April 1948, Page 6

Mr. Semple On Right To Transfer Men

Press Association)

(Per

WELLINGTON, April 6. On liis return t'rom Mangakino today, Mr. Lemple had conmients to make rclating to the present situation tliere. Iie said it was being fairly widely circulated by tlie Communists and their fellow travellers, that he was a victimiser. In this ease, Mr. Semxfie stated, there was no question of victimisation. During tlie, whole, of liis term as Minister of Works lie could not be accused of victimisation and far from vietimisiug tlie .gentleman over whoiu this dispute had taken pla.ee, Mr. Semple stated he had aetually re'inst'ated him 011 one oecasion when liis engineers had put him olf. A furth'er point uiade by Mr. Semple was tliat the Publie Works Departinent inust at all times 'have Ihe right o± transfer of any one of its workinon at the departinent \s discretion and for its convenience. The mere faet that tlie nian whom it was desired to transfer was a union oliieial, did not piace him in any speeial position or exempt him l'rom the dex>artment 's right of transfer. The Pnblic Works workers' agreement of 1917 affectiug the relations of workrneii with the . dupartmenl, specificalh gives the dex>artinenL tlie right of transfer and indoed, said Mr. Semple, the dexiartment could not funetion efiicieutly if it did not liave such right. He could not conceive of any4 organisation operating under a stvte of affairs where it did not have Ihe right oi transfer ot any of its employeos for its convenience. Mr. Semple stated. that from his owr observations at Mangakino he was very disturbed to note that the bulk of the people who were at present on strike, had no real knowledge of what they were striking for. The phrase "union principle" was being glibly passed around by the G'ommunist clique on the job. Mr. Semple stated definitely that there was no union principle involved. The plain fact was that Mr. Clapham was using the people on the job to keep him in his present position and the people did not realise they were heing so used. Mr. Semple stated that from his own observations he was convinced that it a x>rox>orly conducted ballot were taken at the x>resent time, tlie workmen would, by a Jiuge majority, decide to go back to work. A11 indieation of this was afforded by the wonderful reeeption. giveii to the Priiue Minister and liiniself at the meeting held last weekend. M r. Senqtle stated that for many years he had foughl for trade union principles and he would be oue of the last to.destroy one of those x»ri u*i x»les. I11 this case, however, 110 sucli x>rincix>Ie involved. The .question is simply, " may a departnienL transfer a man or may it not?'' He whs satislied that the departinent did have the right — that it must retain that right and that the position would be imx>os.sil>!e if that1 right were 11011-existent. "The trunsfor of Mr. Clapham was ordered l>y the Commissioner of Works, Mr. L. It. McKilloj), with my i'ull know ledge and consent," he udded. ''Many workmen have been duped into this action aiul are being deprived of tlieir livelihood simply because the departinent 's right to transfer oue man is disputed. "