OTIRA STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 157, 22 March 1918, Page 6

OTIRA STRIKE

PRINCIPLE AT ISSUE

WHO IS TO CONTROL?

PLAIN TALK BY THE MINISTER

There is a strike of the workers on the Otiral Tunnel works, owing to the dismissal of a boy named Fell, 16i years of age. The union declared that there was no sufficient cause for the dismissal, and the strike is the result: A deputation from the union wiited on the Minister of Public Works (Sir William Fr.iser) yesterday, in reference to the matter.

Mr. B. Beban, ipresidimt of the union, said that the deputation had been appointed by the union to interview the I Minister with the object of getting a i settlement. He made a long statement of the caso from tho po : nt of view of the union. The boy Fell had been employed in the lamp room, taking his turn in shifts with two others, one a crippled man and the other a boy of slender physique. The rate of pay was 7s. a day, with a war bonus of Bd. per day. Fell was asked to go to work firing the boilers to drive the electrical plant. This was only occasional work, rendered necessary only when the water supply to drive the plant failed in dry weather. It was said that on tho first occasion . Fell did the work, but that experience satisfied him that he was not physically fit to go on with it, He iniormed the engineer of this, it was said, and he was dismissed, or was given notice that ho would not be required further. The union urged tiiat Fell was not engaged to do this work, and that he had done the work lor which he had been engaged quite satisfactorily. For ono of the shifts a man was taken out of the tunnel to fire the boilers, and the union contended that i man should have been /taken to fire on the shift.that Fell was asked to take. The cost would have been only Is. 9d. per day more, and as the need for this work did not recur more than twenty days in the yeat the total annual cost would be only .£1 153. Fell placed the case in the hands of the union. Another of the points made by tho union representatives was that in order to release this boy the other two lamp-room employees were required to work twelve-hou: shifts. In reply to tho Minister, Mr. Beban admitted that these employees were paid extra for this extra workr

Minister Asks , ' Questions. The Minister said he wished to know whether the work that Fell was asked to do was not something' that he knew he would have to do when lie wan engaged. Hj was informed that the hoy was tol'd exactly what he would have to do when ha was engaged, and, further, that a brother of Jiis once held the same position, and had had to do thie work. Mr. Beban: In reply to that question, the brother that was there before was two years older than fhis boy The Minister: That is not the point. Was not the work done in this way before?

Mr. Beban: Yes. , „ , .. The Minister: I understand that it has been done in this way for about two years. , , Mr. W. G. Kidd, another, member of the deputation, said that the boy, who had a partially withered arm. was not engaged for this work, but simply to go in the lamp room, whero the duties were li«ht. The boy had done Hi is work satisfactorily, and he was sacked because he was not able' to do the steani-plaut work. ' ,* . The Minister: Not willing to do it, you mean. Mr. Kidd:- Not able to do it. There is no doubt about that. Tho Minister: What work was the boy doing before he was engaged for the tunnel works? Mr. Kidd: Just odd bits of work about the place. 1 The Minister said that he wns advised that Fell had beon working in a sawmill at various arduous work. Mr. A. Dinnie (district engineer on tho tunnel works): I am informed that , he was assistant yardman, and that ho was also working as slabfcy. The Control. The Minister said that with tho evidence before him lie could not come to any other' conclusion than that the boy did not want to do this work, and for t'his reason ihe was not satisfactory to the' management in charge of. the tunnel works. "You must understand, > he said, "that at the tunnel and at any work- of "this kind the authority who is to tell the nif.n what they have to do is the engineer and not tho union." . He said that in the statement of the facts of the case that Mr. Furkert had supplied to him it was set out that when ttie boy refused to do this work on the steam plant he did not then raise any question about his fitness to do the work, and that the demand of the union was one man one job. Mr. Beban: We positively deny that. Tho Minister: "I am very glad to hear that yon do not ask for that because I could not stand that for a mmute. Hβ went on to say that the work Fell was asked to do in tho boiler-house was classed by the Inspector of Machinery as only boys' work. Boys had been doing it for fully two years .before. The workin the lamp room was very light work. For a great deal of the timo they had nothing whatever to do. It wns, therefore, no great hardship for the other two shift employees to carry on for twelve hours, seeing that they were paid extra for it. It was not correct that the boy was summarily dispensed with. Ho was kept on for some time after ho was given notice. Surely, the union was not going to contend that the engineer-in-chief should not have tho right to say whether a person was a suitable person to be employed or not. If a boy was not suitable, surely the engineer should bo able to dispense with his services. He could not for a moment allow any claim to the contrary. He lioped that the union wqnld not dispute the right of the management to dispense with a man who was not satisfactory, because that was a point which he could not discuss further.

Who Is To Judge? Mr. Kidd repeated that the work of the boy in the lamp room bad .been satisTho Minister: Who is the best judge of that, the union or the engineer? _ ! Sir Kidd: We say that we arc just 1 as well able to say whether a man is doin.' his work properly as Hie engineer. Tho Minister: That is not the point. The question is, who is to decide whether an employee is suitable to the management or not? ■ Mr J Glover (another member of tho deputation): The men sny that this is a case of victimisation. ' ... The Minister: If there was victimisation I would ho the last to .sustain my officers. There is no evidence of vic- , tiniisation hero. This boy was engaged for a particular job, and he was not able to do it, and we got rid of him. If this ! work was some new thing put upon a boy for the first time you would have erouml for objection, but it is not so. It has heen going on for two years and there has been no complaint about it. Mr. Dinnie: The night the boy would not go on to the steam plant the words ho used were that he would not go on, that it was not his work, and he was not paid for it. Hβ did not say that he was a cripple. It was the next day that ho said that ho was not able to d Vr' Kidd: We say that oceauso a i wrong has gone on for two years that 'is not a reason why it should be'continued. We say the'boy ,was engaged for a job which ho filled satisfactorily, and he should not have to. do this other * Mr! Behan said that this boy had protested against having to do this other The Minister: There is no evidence of 8 Beban said that ho protested ' strongly to the union.

Firm Refusals. Mr ICidd said that the union challenged tho Minister to Ret some inde- ■ nemlent, experienced man lo settle the point of whether the boy Fell was capable of doing the work. Would the Minister do that? The Minister: No, certainly not. i Mr Kid'd: You won't give us justice.

Wo are not here to get justice. This Is the last plnco wo would come to to get justice. There is a good fair challenge, and you will not tako it up. The Minister: "Certainly not, because that is not the poiut. Tho boy was dismissed because lie was not able, or said he 'was not able, to do tho work wo want to have done." ' He contended that if the management found that a man or a boy was unsuitable for tho work lie was required to do, tho management had a perfect right to dismiss him, -and get. another to do the work. The boy had hot been victimised on account of anything ho had done. Tho boy had said that lio could not do the work in the same way as it had been done for two years by his predecessors, and the management had simply said to the boy that the job whs not suitable for him, and that they must get someone else who could do it. The whole question was: "Who should be tho best judges of who should bo employed on fhe tunnel ?" That was what it all came to. If tho management could not dismiss a man who was not doing the work ho was Required to do, then it amounted to this: that the union were to be the bosses on tho tunnel works. He had not wished for this troubie. He wished to toll them that he had been, abused in Auckland for keeping on the work at the Otira Tunnel. It could not bo said that he had any hostility to the work. 116 had always endeavoured to meet iho men in such differences as had occurred, but there were questions on which he. could not give way, and one of them was as to who should say wlio was to be employed on the tunnel. Ho was advised by Mr. Dinnie that if the management liad been aware of tho boy's disability in the first instance he would never have been employed at all. For these reasons he could not ?ive any different answer from that which ho had already given—that he could not reinstate Fell. If lie did it would strike nt the very root of all control and discipline in all Government works. Assuming that everything that the union said was ouite correct, tho management had still the right to say that the bov was unsuitable, mid that they would get someone else to do the work.

.An annenl was me tie by the deputation to the Minister to reconsider his decision. Sir William Eraser said that tho union had done wrong from Hm beginning. In--* stead of comiivs fc" him with the complaint they had held a pistol to his hend by going on strike, with talk'about eish t hours' <lny and ono man one job and Hint sort'of thin?. The Minister promised in the end after more talk that if the deputation would come back at 2 p.m. he would 1 give his final answer r>fto' having in the meantime a talk with Mr. Dinnie. .

Final Answer. At 2 o'clock .the Minister gave hifl answer, which was the same which he had already given—that he could not reinstate Fell. He suid that he had given the matter very serious consideration, and if Otira were the only work he had in hand he might have dealt with the matter differently. But whatever he did or said in regard to this case would lie a guide as affecting other works. If lie were to reinstate Fell it would be wgarded throughout the Dominion as an admission that in the control of any woiflc the district engineer must consult the union before he could dispense with tho services of any man. He could not allow such an idea to go abroad. If the union considered Hint there was a grievance the proper course to pursue was not to call the men out, but to refer the matter to him, when he could have investigated it, as he had investigated many other complaints. Ho could have no more to say about the matter than that. Mr. Bebi'in said that the 'position had not until (hen become very serious. He declared that the union had had no justice in this case.