TRAMWAY TROUBLE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 259, 25 July 1908, Page 5

TRAMWAY TROUBLE.

THE AUCKLAND DISPUTE. DECISION OF THE BOARD. ILL THE MEN'S DEMANDS CONCEDED ' EXCEPT ONE. ■ (BjT TEIEGRArn—PIE3S A3%C«TIOX) Auckland, July 24. The special Board constituted under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (with Dr. M'Arthur, S.M. as chairman) to consider tho tramway dispute. delivered its finding this afternoon; All of the demands of the men were conceded with tho oxception of that demanding that so-called "blacklegs" should not be reinstated. The Board directed:— , (1) That Conductor Herdson bo reinstated in- his position.' (2) Tnat. the general manager shall give a written'guarantee that, in futuro any employee being dismissed from tho' servico shall do given a valid reason, for his dismissal. . (3) That any omployee being sent, to the head office for an alleged fault shall see all the reports made against him, and have the right to: call evidence on his behalf.. ■ (4). That. any, inspector proved guilty _ of making misstatements or false reports against employees shall bo - instantly dismissed. ' (5) Seeing that Mr: Lysaght's questionable methods ,woro tho real cause of the strike of November, .1906, and .th.it the recent haras- .. sing of motormen and conductors by inspectors has been in obedience to his in-. .Btructions, he shall bo removed , from direct contact with the men. . (6)-Thei Board dirccts. that the foregoing recommendations shall take effect from September 1, 1908, and shall continue in force until August 31, 1910. . . i INSPECTOR AND CONDUCTOR. Proceeding, the Chairman said: "In regard to Clause l'thoro is a direct conflict of evidence as : to what took place between tho inspector-, and tho conductor. The inspector's report was taken as correct, and the oohductor was not called on for his defence. In : my opinion- it was. a case -that should hayo .been carefully investigated. Hordsqn was not. given satisfactory reason for his dismissal.. I-, consider that he should have been allowed to call evidence, and that, tho result should have followed accordingly. It would be, difficult to re-open the case now, , and, all : things considered, it appears, to me best to ; reinstate .Hordson and thus restore confidence in the employees. TESTIMONIALS. '' As to Clause 2, it is usual for employers such as the Company in the prosent dispute to ask for certificates and testimonials from those who apply for employment. This as- . BUmos on the part of tho proposing employer that former employers of the applicant would, 1 had he been satisfactory, have given him testimonials. Is it then too much' to expect from, them that which they expect from others? The giving'a character of a servant is one of the most ordinary circumstances which a member of society is called ; upon to m'ako evon in. his private, capacity, and it is a duty' of . great. importance to ',-the "- interests.. of .. the .public, especially when the employer is in a puolic, or somi-public, position.. In' respect of 'that duty a party offends grievously against the interests of tho community in . giving a good character where it is not deserved, or against justice and humanity :in either wrongfully refusing to give a character, or in wilfully misrepresenting one to the. .harm of the individual. ,• There is •no class to whom it is of. such vital importance that character should be freely-given as honest servants. A mastor is amply , protected in the giving of a character. He has nothing to fear if he has acted uprightly. It' is for the public good that thero should be the utmost confidence ■ between' the 'Company, and its servants. Tho , 'publio safety atad : convenience domand that r such confidence should exist. Tho Company is ;'filly protected'by the "common| .law in the matter of dismissals,. discharges, and in the ■ giving of characters. Relying upon the principles contained in the ■ foregoing, I am • strongly of opinion that an employee, on be- ■ : ng dismissed from tho. service, should be a valid, reason for-his dismissal. COURT OF APPEAL. "In regard' to Clause, 3, in my .opinion, if an employee is summoned to the head ' office -for ail' alleged doi fault,' ho_ should 'be shown' all: the reports against him/ It is ,only bare justice that an accused iperson should -know. exactly the nature off the accusation brought against him, . arid ; who .it 'is _ that accuses ' him.' 'A necessary 'corollary is that ; he should be allowed- to 'call evidenco on his own behalf.' ' I consider that there should be a Court of Appeal to which an employee may have recourse if not satisfied with the decision in'his case. ' THE OTHER CLAUSES. " Concerning Clause 4 t we consider that a request of this sort requires to be only preferred in order to bo-agreed to. "With respect to Clause 5, in our opinion Mr. Lysaght, perhaps from ,an excess of zeal in ; his office, or from _an over-confidence in the powers he thought invested in him, issued instructions or made suggestions, and said things, which, after due reflection, he has found unwarranted. I consider it would be in the interests of all. the parties, the Company, the employees, and tho public, that Mr. Lysaght. snould be given a position that ■ will remove him from direct contact with tho men." '

Concluding, the President of the Board said: "The Employees had made a demand that they'should not be asked to work with any 'blacklegs' who went back to work during the last strike. There is evidently a strong feeling amongst the employees against resuming, work with the two men who refused to go out.. I consider .that these two men were entitled to their own opinion as to striking or not, and I do not think it fair or just that they should be punished for having the courage of their opinions. . I cannot, therefore, agree with the demand contained in this clause."