RAILWAY HOURS.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 August 1924, Page 1

RAILWAY HOURS.

CHARGE AGAINST MINISTER. THE 48-HOUR- WEEK ORDER. WELLINGTON. Aug. 2fi. A strong criticism of the .Minister of Railways for alleged dissimulation over his order that the 48-hour week should be imposed in the railway service, appears in the ollicial journal of the Railway-men's Society. “Our members,” states the "Railway Review, “have believed all along tliat the Minister of Railways did not play the game with them after the strike, and. now that the evidence is coming to light, the Ministerial dissimulation is Ix'ioming plain. To understand the position a careful study of dates is needed. When the Labour Party challenged the Government on its treatment of our .members, there was a discussion in the House. and Air Coates endeavoured to justify bis action in forcing t.lie 48-hour week into operation before a wages tribunal could investigate railway working conditions.

“The ‘Hansard’ record of liis speech on dune 27th. reads:—‘The Hon .1. G. Coates: Secondly, I hesitated to put into operation the 48-hours with oyertime oiilv after that, unless there is a tribunal which you can go to afterwards. or a court to which you can go to for. recommendation. When Air Connelly stated, in Auckland, that lie had accepted the proposal of the Government. instructions were, immediately issued to the General .Manager to roster liis men on a 48-hour week. An argument did take place afterwards, that is true, as to what a 18hottr meant. 1 am not going to say that the president is knowingly ntisreprosontiiig the position... So far as any dealings I have had with .Mr Connelly are concerned I have found him perfectly straight-forward, hut there is

this difficulty which has cropped up, an the first intimation I got. of it was th statement, that, he made belore th hoard itself.’ “The Alinister." continues the “lit view.” "endeavoured tii make Partin meat believe that it. was only when M Connelly nniioimcod the acceptance <i the tribunal that instructions to iliac gitralc a 48-hour week were issued. AI Connelly's acceptance was announce' from Auckland on May 22nd. What ha tlm Minister to say t i the moved lac that he issued the iiptruction to ltd; a wav the men’s 44-hour week ovivileg on May 141 i., a week before Air Con nelly's acceptance ?

“This damaging exposure of Ministerial lack of candour is demonstrated hv an extract from the notes of an Executive Council interview with tin Minister of Railways on Alay .list. 1824 The Minister said: ‘There must be some misunderstanding. I am mil go ing to sav there is not. hot to show von what, was in my mind on the 18liottr week, f will read you a memorandum I sent to tlie General Manager on Ala.v 14 Ab'ino. General Manager of Railways. With reference to your interview with me yesterday concerning conditions of employment tinder which members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants are to work pending any further action that mav he taken hy the Government. 1 desire to confirm our verbal agreement that all men in the Second Division, with Hie exception of the locomotive running stalf. shall forthwith he rostered on a basis of a 48-hour week and overtime to he paid only for time in excess of IS hours per week. This means that the 44-hour week and 8-lionr day are at present inoperative.—.l. G. Coates. Alinister of Railways.’ ” MINISTER EXPLAINS.

“My attention hits been drawn In a statement which appeared in the Press taken from the ‘Railway Review.’ ((incoming the reinstatement of the IShour week for members of the A.K.R.S." stated life .Minister of Railways ll) a I'oproxoiitutive of the “Lyttelton ’fillies." "In seeking ta prove a ca;e of ‘dissimulation’ oil my part the article lias been so construed ns to purposely evade the true position. The eoiinoil of the society did interview me mi .May Hist, to a-!; whether in the event of a further tribunal being agreed to any alterations in conditions other than those which had already been given ('fleet to would be made before such tribunal sat. I replied that no further alterations would lie made. The council saw me again on June lih. and complained tliat since tlie previous interview they had received a communication from the (ieneral .Manager indicating tliat in addition to extension of weekly limit's to -IS the 8-hour day had also been terminated for payment of overtime, and suggested a brencli of fc.itih on my part. In order tii prove- that there had been no misunderstanding s.-i far as 1 was concerned 1 produced the memorandum of A lay Llili. to the (ieneral Manager, showing clearly that the 8-hour day was to lieeotne inoperative with the rcinstafenint of the IS-lintir week. It is j 'fleetl,v true although I had arranged with the (leneral Afatiager on May T-ftll. for the men ; o he^ rostered on a IShour week, that I hesitated to bring it into operation until the mieiclv indicated that another tribunal would be agreed to. Tliis i* elearly ~i„M',| by the fact that the alteration in hours was not put into operation until May 2fiih. fi.iir days niter the an-| noiim eluent oi Mr Connely s acet’ptance j appeared in the Press"