CARPENTERS’ DISPUTE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 136, 20 March 1948, Page 3

CARPENTERS’ DISPUTE

Tribunal Still Refused GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS ATTITUDE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 19. The Government has adhered to its refusal to appoint a tribunal to settle the dispute over the claims of the New Zealand Carpenters’ Union for an increase of in the hourly rate of pay for carpenters and joiners. The offer of the Government to facilitate-, as far as practicable, a further hearing of the carpenters’ claim in the Court of Arbitration has been repeated, but it is understood that this I proposal remains unacceptable to the union. Tiie- national executive of the New Zealand Federation of Labour met this morning to consider Cabinet’s reply to the federation’s proposal for the appointment of a tribunal. No statement was issued after the meeting. Meanwhile, the stalemate continues. Further discussions between the national executive of the federation and union representative# will take place next Wednesday. CHARGES AGAINST BUILDER MEN PAID ABOVE AWARD RATE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 19. The claim ihat an increase in payments to carpenters had been made by a builder because of threats issued by Carpenters’ Union officials was made to-day by Mr G. S. Stephenson, appearing for John Thomas Hogan, a builder and contractor, of Wellington, in the Magistrate’s Court.

Mr Stephenson submitted that when the builder employed carpenters, lie was entitled to pay them as much as 3d or 6d above the award rates, provided he notified the Wages Commissioner.

Five informations were laid against Hogan by the Inspector of Factories, for allegedly paying carpenters above the basic rate without the approval of the Wages Commissioner. Mr W. R. Birks, prosecuting, said that in February, defendant was employing 16 carpenters, a foreman and an apprentice. The charges were laid concerning the week ending February 24, when six of the carpenter# in Hogan’s employ were paid 3s BJd an hour. The prosecution claimed that the extra lid was the sum that was irrecoverable under the Economic Stabilisation Regulations, and in paying it defandant committed an offenece.

Mr Stephenson, for the defendant, said that if any offence had been committed, it was in defendant’s failure to notify the Wages Commissioner within one week that he had increased the pay to five workers by lid. It wa# defendant’s practice to pay his workers more than the award rate once they satisfied him and proved themselves. Defendant had already suffered five days under the go-slow policy before making the increase. However the fact that he had made the payments under illegal compulsion did not affect the validity of the payments. The Magistrate (Mr J. 11. Thompson) said that, a number of unusual poin's had been raised, and he reserved his decision.

SIX EMPLOYERS CHARGED

DECISION RESERVED IN CASES AT AUCKLAND

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, March 19. Charged with committing a broach of the Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1942, in February, by each paying a carpenter an increase of lid an hour on the basic rate of remuneration, six employers pleaded not guilty' in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M. Defendants were Alfred J. Good, If. R. Ross and Sons, Ltd., R. Savroy, Ltd., the D. C. Street Construction Company, and W. I-I. Whittaker, Ltd., all represented* by Mr A. Clarke and Thomas Clements, Ltd., represented by Mr Richmond. _ » The informations were laid by the Inspector of Factories. Mr G. S. R. Meredith, who conducted the case for the Department of Labour, stated that there was recently a go-slow movement among carpenters in Auckland, and after the movement started, defendants increased their wages, a breach of the regulations. It was submitted that in doing so the employers hardly cooperated with the Government in its attempts to combat the activities of the carpenters. By the present award and its amendment, the wage rate of carpenters was 3s 7d an hour. Until the date in February, defendants paid the carpenters mentioned in the charges the award rate, but toward < the end of. February an increased payment of 1 1 an hour was made. Reginald Albert Holloway, an inspector of factories, gave evidence of visits paid to the offices of W. I-I. Whittaker, Ltd., and R. Savroy, Ltd. The firms admitted that no contract i permitted the increase. No classifica- ! tion scheme had been approved by I the Stabilisation Commission, and no j application for an increase bad been made to the Wages Commissioner. Asked whether the department would investigate breaches of the regulations, if they came to its knowledge, witness said they were often discovered. Mr Clarke then asked witness whether tin* situations vacant advertisements in lht> daily newspapers were studied for breaches of the regulations, and proceeded to .quote from two advertisements. One offered carpenters Hr an hour and another offered labourers 3s 2. I ,d or 3s 3.td an hour. Labourers were to apply to the State Hydro-electric Department at Penrose. The Magistrate said it was general knowledge that competition was so keen that people had to pay extra for a good job. They just did not know j about the regulations.- Some did not i care, and some paid through kindness. Mr -Clarke: Even the State Hydroelectric Department, apparently. Questioned by Mr Clarke, Clifford Lorrie Hunter, Wages Commissioner, said that, he received several requests by telephone from employers who asked whether he would entertain an application to increase carpenters’ pay by ltd an hour. He told

them he could not do it in the circumstances.

Asked whether it was useless for them to apply, witness said that on the evidence over the telephone, it was.

Gordon Brown, assistant District Superintendent of the Department of Labour, was asked by Mr Clarke whether if would not have been fairer to have prosecuted the persons who received extra payments as well as those who paid. Witness said he took his instructions from the Secretary of Labour in Wellington. They were to institute proceedings against those who had paid.

Mr Clarke said that proof of the payments had not been submitted. The inspectors had said they had seen entries in books but that was the only evidence to prove the case. The Court should have had on oath the evidence of the men who were alleged to have received extra payments.

The Magistrate said that the books were, by statute, bound to be kept. The Magistrate reserved his decision on all the cases.