CHEMICAL WORKERS AWARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 146, 21 June 1915, Page 7

CHEMICAL WORKERS AWARD.

MXNIMXTM WAGE, 1/2 PER HOUR WORKERS , REPRESENTATIVE DISAGREES. The Arbitration Court hae fixed a new award in the dispute between the Westfield Chemical Manure Workers' Union and <the Xew Zealand Drug Company, Ltd., to take effect from July 12th next, and to continue dn force till January 1, 11)17. Hie Honor Mr. Justice Stringer remarks that the only substantial quea tion submitted to the Court was as to the minimum rate of wages, w\hich the Court has fixed at 1/2 per hour. This rate, although a substantial increase upon the minimum rate fixed by the last award in thie industry, is one penny per hour less than the rate fixed 'by the award made in a similar industry in CbiriatchuTCh in April last. In fixing the rate in Christcburch at 1/3 per hour, the Court did so for the purpose of bringing the wage 3 into conformity with those paid fox similar work by the Meat Freezing Companies jn Canterbury, ac embodied in the industrial agreement entered iu'to between these companies and the workers. The evidence adduced in Dunedin and Auckland has satisfied the Court that iheie is no etriet analogy between employment of workers by freezing companies in connection with this industry, and by companies and firms who are solely engaged in the industry. In Whs former case thp employment is of a seasonal character, while in ithc latter it is practically continuous. The Judge goes on to say: 'It has also been proved to the Court that companies and firms engage-el in tihe industry are subject to competition from foreign manufacturers, against whom they are not protected toy the Customs tariff, and that 'the landed cost of many of the raw materia lβ 'if the commodities produced has increased substantially. In these circiunetanecß, and having regard to the fact that the average wage earned by the workers was at leaet a fair living wage, the Court did not feel justified in imposing any further burden upon 'tihe industry than is involved in the increase beforementioned." The Judge concludes by saying: "Mr. MoCullough does not agree with the Tate fixed as above, as he thinks that, having fixed the rate at 1/3 for Canterbury, ' that rate ought to be adhered to in other districts."