TRANSPORT BOARD’S REPLY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 798, 19 October 1929, Page 1

TRANSPORT BOARD’S REPLY

No Attempt to Smash Union attack on wages denied EMPHATIC denial of the allegation by the Auckland District Council 6f the Alliance of Labour that there was an attempt by the Transport Board to smash the Tramwavmen’s Union was made this morning by Mr. J. A. C. Allum, chairman of the board. Asked if the management had ever suggested reductions in the wages of the rank and file to offset the decreased volume of revenue of recent months, Mr. A. E. Ford, manager, said: “Absolutely no ! It is all propaganda.”

Mr. Allum declared that no one was likely to be deceived by the Alliance oJ Labour, in its resolutions supporting the union in its dispute with the board, in its "attempt to draw a red herring across the scent." Interviewed by The Sun, Mr. Allum said: "The Transport Board is not attempting to smash the union, nor is it repudiating the signatures of its representatives who signed the agreement with the union.’ The Alliance of Labour had expressed surprise that public men should repudiate the signed agreement between Mr. Allum. then chairman of the Tramways Committee of the City Council, Mr. A. E. Ford, manager of the undertaking, and Messrs. J. J. Nixon and J. Liddell, for the union. Discussing the agreement, Mr. Allum stated: "Although the board has been advised that this agreement is no ionger in force, it has continued to carry out its provisions. "The members of the union are receiving the same pay and are enjoying the same conditions as before the agreement expired. If the union considers that the board is not observing the agreement, its obvious course is to take proceedings against the board and so get the question settled by the court.” ' As the board’s application to be

joined as a party to the Local BodieeLabourers’ Award is now pending before the Arbitration Court, it would not be proper for me to comment on it in any way. The board has acted in what it conceived to be the interests of the system it controls and of the men it employs. It has already offered to submit the difference between itself and the union to independent arbitration, and I have not been able to understand why the union rejected this offer. It can still accept it or it can make any other suggestion to the board, knowing that, so long as it is based on a definite acceptance of the principle that the union will not interfere with the duty of the board’s employees to the board, any such suggestion will receive the sympathetic consideration of the board. “Otherwise the union can register under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and cite the board before the Arbitration Court. The board has no choice either to help or to hinder such a course, but it would welcome the opportunity of placing its position before the court.” The board would, the statement concluded, continue to treat its employees fairly but, as representing the public, it would also insist on the proper discharge of their duties. Should any crisis be precipitated the board would take such action as may be necessary to protect the interests of the public in connection with the transport undertaking.