BOTH STAND FIRM

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 214, 4 May 1932, Page 5

BOTH STAND FIRM

(Press. Assn.-

LONG NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN BOARD AND UNION INCONCLUSIVE OBJECTION TO RATIONING

— By Telegraph — Copyrlght).

CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday. For four hours to-day, negotiations were carried on between the Christchurch Tramway Board and the' union. The Mayor, Mr. D. G. Sullivan, M.P., the Deputy-Mayor, the Rev. J. K. Archer, and Mr J. McCombs, M.P., took part in the negotiations, acting as intermediaries between the parties. Ilndieations, until a late hour in the afternoon, were that the parties would be able to agree on a basis of settlement. However, at 6 o'clock, Mr. Sullivan announced that their efforts to bring about a settlement had not succeeded. The final proposal of the board was that the men call off the strike and' the board withdraw.the dismissal notices, the recent rationing scheme to continue. The board also is prepared to meet the men and discuss any suggestions they may wish to bring forward with a view to improving the existing rationing system, which improvement could be instituted forthwith, if agreeable to the parties, it being understood that the whole question is to be rGviewed on June 8. This proposal was rejected by the union representatives, who made the following counter proposal: "That the employees call off the strike and the board cancel the dismissal notices and that negotiations be immediately opened without prejudice for a rationing scheme." This proposal in turn was rejected by the board. The men are holding a meeting to-night. The difference between the two proposals is that the board insists on a rationing scheme as its condition of the cancellation of the dismissal notices, while the union's proposal does not mean the acceptance of rationing. The board, if rationing is accepted, is prepared to discuss the conditions under which it operates. The union is prepared only to negotiate coneerning the rationing system. The fear of the board members was that if these negotiations were accepted, the union might reject rationing altogether or might seek to impose such conditions that the scheme might result in little or no saving to the board, which saving was the whole purpose of the rationing scheme in the first instance and. of the dismissals when the scheme was rejected by the men. What the men's reasons are for ohjecting to the board's proposals have not been stated, hut they have previously condemned the rationing as it operated, alleging that the board used it unfairly to save money.