NOT PREFERENTIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 27 November 1931, Page 5

NOT PREFERENTIAL

RELIEF WORKERS’ TREATMENT. SECRETARY DENIES ALLEGATIONS. A denial of the statement appearing in a letter to the Editor, and published in yesterday’s issue of the “Guardian,” dealing with the allocation of relief work, was given by the Secretary of the local Unemployment Relief Committee (Mr -H. G. F. Coles) this morning.

The statement in the letter, which was signed by “Scheme 5” was as follows:—“In conclusion, permit me to ask the executive of the local Unemployment Committee why the men doing •work for the Hospital Board, under scheme 5, are given their full allowance of work when the men on the Borough and County Councils are cut. to as low as one-third their allowance? I am' told it is because they are. doing useful work, but this is pretty thin, andi no reason why one gang should receive more favourable treatment , than the test.' ’The' matter' should-”'be -brought «« under the notice of the Unemployment Board.” . Mr Coles said that this statement was ~ not according to fact . He explained i( the method of allocation of work which mu made by the. Unemployment Board jjj on the basis of the number of men. r Tha process of rationing was ,to make ■, the money fit the number of men, pre. ference being given to the married man with children. ;

“The Borough men are receiving the same treatment as the Hospital mep,’ he said, and produced figures to show that no preferential treatment had been given to any of the men. For the week ending to-morrow, to give ' full time to the men, it would have taken the sum of £lO3 6s for the Borough and Hospital, but the amount of the money voted was only £79, leaving a deficiency of £24 6s.