THE ASSOCIATION'S ANSWER

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 128, 3 June 1919, Page 8

THE ASSOCIATION'S ANSWER

This afternoon the union sent the following reply to the-Acting Prime Minister's letter:— Sir, —In reply to your letter of 2nd finst., I have the honour to state that \yoar letter^has been duly considered by jthe executive, and they direct that a (■reply be sent as follows: —That tKe Government made a distinct charge against '.the representatives of this association of j refusing to "discuss- the details of the (Government scheme." This charge we .^emphatically deny. Your letter refers to an interview (which took place on 12th February last, riind which was weeks before the "Government scheme" saw the light of day. On 12th February and on 14th February, to which dates of interviews your letter refers, the delegates took up the attirtude that to place any more arguments for our demands before the Minister would only make them look ridiculous i before their members, if the Minister did not give a reasonable answer. Apart from the question of cost, the -Minister would give no reply, and, therefore, the delegates considered that to go back and tell the members that they had .again represented the demands (and which had been represented and represented since the year 1913) and received no further satisfaction, would have had a very tinrt effect upon tho members. . The dele- . gate 3, therefore, took up the attitude that li would be much better to go back and ; tell ".the", members that the demands had ■been formally placed before the Minis- ! ter and' the delegates would discuss the I demands in conjunction with the Mims- / ter's proposals when he submitted them. - When the delegates were prepared to > discuss "the Government scheme," they : wore met with tho bald statement that * they were-final.. However, on tho date > upon which you charge the association I with refusing to discuss matters, and ! Which was the date upon which the de- : mands of the association were submiti.ted, the delegates advised the Minister j that they preferred the general secrej tary to give him tho fullest information j.possiblo on the demands, and that he hwould do so if the request was made. 1 No request was made for any explanation of the demands, and which was i clear proof that tho Minister did not ■ require , any further enlightenment on ) the demands. So, therefore, the GovjernmeDt charge, although shifted from the Government schema to the associaj tion's demands, shows conclusively that fthe Government is being misinformed. The other points raised in your letter inquire no comment herein, except to ! state that some of them are contrary to .'fact. The executive council will be '.pleased to accept the arrangements made ',+.o meet the Minister of Railways, and |±hey do hope that for the sake of indusjitrial peace that some good will evenj^tuate. The executive council regress •fcthat the Government could not agree ■ jfto allow a Minister to act as chairman ly/ho had experience in railway adpninistr&tion, and who gave general 'satisfaction while h» was Minister of ■'ißailways. The concluding statement with reference to the 44-hour week applying strictly to the wrokshops does not enlighten this association in any way as to the unfairness of the Government request for this association to accept the scheme as submitted to them. Anyhow, this is not in keeping with the ([Minister's statement that if ho gave v ....-■

anything to loco men he could not resist it to others in the railway Eervice. —We are, yours sincerely, W. M'ARLEY, Gen. Sec. E. W. HENDERSON, President. 3rd June, 1919.