LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Longbridge. Strike
SIR,—it is very doubtful whether the issue at Austin's is the acceptance of the principle of privileged treatment for shop-stewards. The management claims that of 775 men dismissed with Mr. McHugh 270 have not Vet been re-engaged, and that McHugh's turn has not yet come. But certain facts point to the conclusion that the company is in fact unwilling to take him back at all, and that he is being victimised under the camouflage of refusing to concede him preferential treatment.
Mclitigh has fifteen years' service with the company, which would seem to suggest a high degree of priority, particularly when some 200 of the re-engaged men are already due for retirement.' It is difficult to see how the company can justify its application to the local Labour Exchange for more vehicle-builders when many of those previously employed have not been taken back in spite of the firm's pledge of November 14th to give these redundant men preference., No fewer than forty-three men have so far been taken on by the company .to do jobs for which McHugh is Perfectly qualified who were not on the pay- roll before.
AU this suggests that the union's charge that the company is deliber- ately discriminating against shop-stewards may have some validity, and I it should certainly no,t be dismissed as unfounded until Austin's have Produced a convincing explanation.—Yours faithfully, 10 131ontfield Villas, W.2.
HARVEY R. COLE.
Previous page
