Page:Engines and men- the history of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. A survey of organisation of railways and railway locomotive men (IA enginesmenhistor00rayniala).pdf/91

 Company's men in the Society." There were other difficulties at Sheffield, a local Treasurer defaulting to the extent of £217 14s. 7½d., and after full investigation and legal advice, the matter was placed with the Society’s solicitors, and a prosecution ordered, An agreement was reached for the payment of £60 down and the balance by 10s. weekly. Tondu was authorised to open a branch on June 29th of 1884, "as it will be more convenient than having to pay their contributions to Neath." In September the Secretary gave a report of the opening of a new branch at Newport, and on November 30th it was decided "that Thomas Sunter have his fine returned, 7s. 6d., for having a hot axle on August 4th." In December a case of dismissal of a delegate caused very serious consideration, but it was found on inquiry that there had been a violation of the Company’s rule to furnish a pretext for the dismissal.

At the beginning of 1885 the Secretary visited Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth and Pontypool, and all branches were supplied with lists of benefits and unjust and arbitrary fines paid back to members. There were cases of M.S. & L. men being suspended for being away from home when called upon for duty, and others for refusing to go on duty after insufficient rest. In all of these pernicious cases wages were made good by the Society.

The year 1885 brought a return and a completion of the friction with the first General Secretary, referred to earlier in this chapter.

The records are in this manner:—

March 29th. “Special sub-committee appointed to find a more suitable place for a general office; Messrs. Brooke, Holland, Sunter, Lester, and Webb appointed for this purpose.”

April 26th. "Proposed that the General Secretary write all branches, requesting them to return the circular letter re action of Executive Committee respecting removal of general office."

April 26th. “Proposed by Thomas Sunter and seconded by William Webb, that the General Secretary be suspended for—{here another hand takes up the record)—for persistently opposing the wishes of the Executive Committee by refusing to carry out their instructions in writing to branches for circular relating