FREEZING WORKERS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLII, Issue 9375, 2 November 1921, Page 5

FREEZING WORKERS

WAGES AND CONDITIONS. DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, November 1. During the resumed hearing 'of the freezing workers' dispute at the Arbitration Court the employers complained of the union's attitude m causing delay. All North Island works should open m the next two or three weeks, but they could not open the season under the present rates of pay. If the union officials did not agree taeliminate unnecessary hearings the companies would withhold the bonus, payment of which should have ceased on August 31, and start operations on the basis of the 1919 award. The union representatives denied that they were delaying proceedings. Mr Justice Frazer said the Court would feel more satisfied, if it heard evidence m Canterbury before making a North -Island award. That would make a difference of only a week or two. The temporary withholding of the bonus was a matter for the employers. It might only create friction. The-hearing then proceeded. • Mr Cookson, the employers' representative, detailed the employers' case at considerable length. He said that prior to the" war companies and employees operated under individual awards and agreements, the employees being divided into six groups. There had been no serious friction, excepting the slaughtermen's strike m 1913. The custom of renewing agreements continued till 1916, wnen it was agreed that one award or agreement should cover the whole of the. freezing works and related trades employees on one side and the companies on the other. The proposals now advanced by 'the employers provided for practically uniform awards, at any rate through the l^orth Island. This was an argument m favour of a single hearing for the whole dispute. A" settlement was urgently necessary to avoid loss, which would be inevitable if the works could not handle stock immediately it was ready for market. Mr Cookson reviewed the rise m wages since 1916. In 1919 an agreement was entered into at the height of the season^ when it would have been tisastrous to allow the works to stop. A bonus, was granted m February. 1920, at the height off the season, and further concessions at the en 3of 1920 made the addition to the 1919 rates 25 per cent, for hourly and weekly workers and 20 ncr cent for pieceworkers. The emnloyers' new proposals adopted the conditions m force prior to April, 1919, while wages m nearly every case were those prescribed m the 1919 agreement. Mr Cookson said that wages between 1914 and 1921 increased 87.5 per cent, comnared with 78.97 -per cent, increase m the cost of living. While nominal wages had increased 81 per cent., the actual cost of labour to perform a given amount of work had increased 100 ncr cent. It was proposed that the new award should, coveir "" only coming season. Evidence was yven m support of the employers' proposal that the 1919 agreement regarding wages*and stricter working conditions should be reverted to. Evidence also was heard with regard to the high prices- ruling for agricultural implements and other factors m labour and producb that farmers have to face. It was'stated that manure had increased m price 75 per cent., and implements about 100 per cent. One farmer witness estimated that farmers last year paid out £600,000^ for shearing and £1,200,000 for freezing. He quoted figures" showing how prices of fat stock had altered. He attributed the present position to high working charges, labour costs, and prices of wool.