FREEZING AWARD.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 41, 28 November 1938, Page 5

FREEZING AWARD.

LIMITATION OF CHAINS. IMPORTANT POINT DISCUSSED. (Special to the “Guardian.”) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Whether a clause in the New Zealand Freezing Workers’ award limiting the number of workers on any 1 chain to 35 should apply to the system of slaughtering at the Westfield freezing works is discussed in an opinion delivered by Mr J. A. Gilmour, S.M., acting for the Arbitration Court. Mr Gilmour finds that the award has not stated in clear terms that the restriction is to apply to the system of slaughtering at Westfield; but he also finds that the award is defective in that provision is- not made for some limitation of the number of workers. A dispute on this point led to a strike recently at the Westfield works.

According to legal argument discussed by Mr Gilmour, the “ring” system introduced at the Westfield works, is the only one of its kind in New Zealand. Two conveyors are in use there, the operating length of one being 370 ft. and the other -350 ft compared with the ayerage length of a straight killing chain at other works of about 120 ft. On e.ach “ring” at "Westfield are employed, on an average, 08 men, compared with about half that number at installations at other works. In evidence when tlie case was argued it was claimed that the application of the restriction to 35 workers would mean the abandonment of the “ring” system by the company thus involving structural alterations at an- approximate cost of £SOOO, and a reduction of the output of the works to half its present capacity. “In framing the relevant clause of the award, the Court made no reference to the ‘ring’ system,” says the opinion given by Ah- Gilmour, “and in my opinion the words ‘or ring,’ which have been added after the word ‘chain’ in the clause dealing with the killing of bobby calves—an important branch of the Westfield Company’s activities —cannot, in the circumstances, be read into the clause relating to the restriction on the number of workers. Put in another way. tlie award lias not stated ‘in clear terms’ that the restriction is to apply to the ring system of slaughtering in operation at Westfield.

“Admittedly the Court allowed sufficient time to enable the company, it bound bv the clause, to make the necessary structural alterations; but if the intention had been to impose a restriction which would have the effect of reducing the company’s output to half its present capacity, one would expect to find this intention unequivocably expressed in the award. On the other hand, of course, one would expect the Court to give its reasons for confining the limitation to the chain system, if such were its intention, and having regard accordingly to all the relevant considerations, I have come to the conclusion, not without doubt, that the award is defective in that provision is not made for some limitation of the number of workers employed on the system of slaughtering in operation at the AVestfield works.” *