A FOREMAN’S PREROGATIVE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2141, 17 June 1920, Page 2

A FOREMAN’S PREROGATIVE.

WAS THE COUNCIL IGNORED?

During the recent influenza epidemic a local butcher, whu conducts his business per medium of a hawking cart without employing any labour, was incapacitated through sickness, and was faced with the possibility of having to close down his business if a substitute could not be found. Knowing that the roadman employed by the Borough Council was an experienced butcher, he sent a message to the road foreman, asking that under the extenuating circumstances the roadman be allowed to drive the hawking cart: until the owner was lit to again resume work. The foreman agreed,/ and the roadman'was employed for two days on the butcher’s cart. That this was done without being first referred to the Council raised the ire of some of our City Fathers, and the matter was referred to at a special meeting held at the end of last month, when some caustic criticism was in-,, dulgcd in. When, however, there was no report from the road foreman in reference to the matter, it was decided to leave same over until the next ordinary meeting. It was brought up at Monday night's-meeting, when (lie road foreman (Mr Huntley) was present, and slated that he was approached by Mr Saps ford’s brother-in-law with the request that the roadman (Mr Sexton) should be allowed to go on the butcher’s cart until Mr Sapsford, who was stricken down with sickness, was able to resume work. Mr Huntley said he saw no objection why the request should not be acceded to. .Mr Sapsford had endeavoured to get a man from Palmerston North without success. He assured the Council that their interests had not suffered in any way, and in acting as he did he meant no dmeourtesv to the Council.

Cr. Coley moved, and Cr. Walker seconded, (hat any employee of the Couneil wishing to leave his work temporarily must lust _ obtain 1 lio permission of the Couneil. The Mayor said the Couneil was passing no reflection on Mr Huntley in this matter. ,

Cr. Coley said the Council employed the roadman, and it was an unfair thing for him to leave his worl; without first obtaining the permission of the Council.

Mr Huntley said that Mr Sapsfordhad had rather bad luck of late, and he considered it was only right to help a person in distress. Cr, Hunt; Hear, hear! It wait a

Christian act. Mr Huntley said that Mr Sexton asked him what he should do. There was no time to consult the Council, and he gave Mr Sexton permission to go.

The Mayor said the Council would not have refused permission had they been asked, but they must have a. definite course of action. Employees must first get permission before leaving their work. Cr. Hunt: Then an employee could not leave his work to pull a man out of the river.

The Mayor: That is an entirely different: thing.

Cr. Walker said there Avas no reflection on Mr Huntley. There Averc extenuating circumstances in this case, and the matter had to be decided at once, and he did quite right in letting the man go.

Cr. Thompson thought that under the circumstances the action oli both Mr Huntley and Mr Sexton avus commendable. This avus the first time since he had been on the Council that anything of this nature had arisen, and he didn’t think there Avas any necessity for the motion, and ho Avould oppose it. Cr. Coley said that if the Cimnuil’rt men could be “borrowed,” he often Avanted a man and Avould get Mr Sexton. He could do witli a man the next day.

Cr. Thompson said it avus an entirely different thing Avhere an employer avus affrays wanting a man. Cr. Coley: I didn’t say 1 avus always Avanting a man. You Avant lo prick your ears open. Cr. Thompson: You said you wanted a man to-morrow. Hav* you got the influenza to-night? Cr, McMnrray said lie took up this position: The Council employed a foreman, in whom they had entire, confidence, who avus responsible to the Council, and if he gave an employee under him temporary leave of absence they could rest assured that he had good and sufficient reasons for doing so. 11' he was not capable of doing ibis, then he certainly was not fit for the position ho occupied. It Avould he absurd to call the Council together to discuss a matter of this kind. He rnove/i as an' amendment, seconded by Cr. Pearson, that if an employee under the control of our borough foreman wishes to obtain temporary leave of, absence from Avork, the borough foreman he responsible for granting same’or not.

Cr. Hunt said he would like to sec “under extenuating eircuraslanees” added to the amendment. s The Mayor said he couldn’t nn-.. dors land a body of men who would ’ support such a proposal. If the Council was to have no voice in the centred of the men they employed, then it was time they quitted. The amendment, on being put, was carried, the voting being:—For: ■ Crs. MeMurray, Pearson, Hunt, Thompson, Rand, and Parkin; against; The Mayor and Crs. Coley and Walker. ' ■'*!