NEW AWARDS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 146, 2 April 1941, Page 7

NEW AWARDS

AUTOMATIC APPLICATIONS.

PROTEST BY EMPLOYERS (P.A.) AUCKLAND, April 1. “We submit that it is in the public interest that this Court should lay down a policy in these' matters,” said Mr W. E. Anderson (secretary of the Auckland Provincial Employers’ Association) during proceedings in the Arbitration Court, when protesting against what he described as the practice of unions of automatically applying for new awards on the expiry of the old, even though conditions of employment had not changed.

The case was one in which the New Zealand Federated Storemen’s and Packers’ and Warehouse Employees’ Union sought a new award to cover employees in wool, grain, hide, and manure stores throughout. New Zealand, except in Canterbury. Air Justice Tyndall presided. “Conditions of employment in this industry have been reviewed four times since .1937,” said Air Anderson. Those conditions did not change rapidly, and work was being carried out in much the same why as 10 years ago. He submitted that there was no justification for the union bringing fresh proceedings. Air Anderson said that wages had been increased by approximately 10 per cent., both in 1.937 arid in 1938, but when the employees sought another increase in 1939 the Court had renewed the 1938 arrangement. Last year the workers had been given a 5 per cent cost of living bonus.

The employers’ margin was fixed by tlfe Government, and would probably remain in force for the, duration of the war, although there was provision for an annual revision. Unless a revision was made jn their favour the employers Wriuld have no increased margin to pay increased wages if such were allowed. “We think the time has arrived when the Court should take some action to discourage applications of this kind,” Air Anderson added. “I feel it is more or less contempt of Court when the union comes along twice for the same thing, when its first application has been turned down. It should not be permissible for the union to ask the Court to judge tho same thing on the same evidence within a short period.” Evidence in support of the employers’ counter-claim for the retention of the existing award was then heard. 'The case will be continued tomorrow.