UN-BRITISH CONDUCT.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 October 1922, Page 4

UN-BRITISH CONDUCT.

The correspondence in connection with the dismissal of five men from the hydro-elec-tric works at Mangorei, which is printed in another column, calls for comment. The whole of the-facts are clearly set out, and show that the council, for some extraordinary reason, decided that in the event of the men being convicted at the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of breaking a theatre by-law—blocking the passage-way, or some equally trivial offence—-they were to be dismissed from the service of the council. They were therefore to be punished twice—once by the magistrate and again by the council. If this is not un-British then we do not know what is. Had there been any criminal delinquency, then it would have been a different matter: they would have deserved the harsh treatment meted out to them. As it was, the men did no more than many others did on the occasion in question. They crowded near the theatre to hear the address being given by Mr. “Pussyfoot” Johnson, and when they were summoned to appear in court (no doubt in order to save their time and money), got their counsel to plead guilty on their behalf. Before then, in privat;, seemingly—like so much of the council business is conducted nowadays—these me-> were sentenced by the council. Why? That is a question which the public would lik ■ to have answered. As it is, these men (all hard-working, honest workers, we ar> informed) are summarily “sacked” and branded almost as criminals. We feel sure townspeople, will not endorse unjust treatment of this nature. Rather would they have the council set an example of what is fair and just in its relations with its staff. Such shabby, unfair conduct as the above is what causes and perpetuates friction and distrust between employers and employees, and is, we say with aU sen e of responsibility, utterly unworthy of the town and discreditable to the council. We understand that the workers have requested the council to be heard on Jje matter. If this is so, we suggest that the proceedings be taken in open meeting, so that the public will have an opportunity of hearing the evidence and forming their own conclusions. W’e say this because it has become a habit of the council lately tc conduct a good deal of the town’s business in camera, and a very harmful habit, in the interests of ratepayers, it may prove to be.