CONCILIATION COUNCIL R

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 136, 10 June 1926, Page 9

CONCILIATION COUNCIL R

< BUTTER AND CHEESE WORKERS. NEW AWARD SOUGHT. A sitting of the Conciliation Council was held to-day to hear an application by the Auckland Creameries, Cheese and Butter Factories' Employees' Union for a new award in that industry. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. P. Halley, presided. The union was represented by Messrs James P. John, J. Jones and S. Illsby. The representatives of the employers were Messrs. P. C. Petersen, W. J. Kirkman and W. S. Dixon. Mr. S. C. Wright was advocate for the em- ■ ployers. Usually the sittings of the council are private, but in the present instance it was decided to admit the Press. Mr. S. C. Wright said as the industry affected was the most important in the Dominion it might be as well to have some publicity. Mr. John for the unions also said he had no objection to the proceedings being open. He added that the employees in this industry were working 56 hours a week, gave up Saturday afternoon, and worked on Sunday, some of them for £3 17/ per week. It might be the greatest industry, but it was also the worst paid. Mr. Wright said he understood the dried milk factories were not included in the present application. Mr. John said a separate application mi slit be made later in respect to dried milk workers. Mr. Hally 'said he understood there was an intention to bring about one award for the whole of New Zealand. Mr. Kirkman said there was talk about a Dominion award in the South Island. They were not ready to go into the matter at the present time. The union asked for the following wages under the new award: Butter fac- j tories where there is a manager and 15 ; hands, first assistant £5 10/, second £5, j third £4 17/0, all others £4 10/ per week; i youths to 16 years, 31/. to 17 years 36/, j to 18 years 41/6, to 19 years 46/( to 20 years 50/; females under 10 years, I 30/6, over 19 years, 42/6. j The counter proposal of the employers ! wa -. the old award. They suggested the j following wages: First assistant £4 19/6, ! second £4 13/6, third £4 6/6, fourth £4 3/, j , all others £3 17/ per week. Engineers I£4 19/6 and £4 14/6, stockers £3 17/. ' j Youths to sixteen 22/G, seventeen 30/6, ! eighteen 37/6, nineteen 45/, twenty 52/6. I Female employees under 19 years 26/ per i | week, 19 and over 3S/6. j j The union asked that no deduction; shall be made from the weekly wages for any cause save for the time lost through the worker's own default, or through sickness. The employers asked to add the words, "or for rent, where the employees reside in a dairy company's bouse, or for I superannuation contributions, or for goods supplied, or from other legal orders j from the workers themselves, or by i direction of the Court.'' Mr. John objected to such deductions being asked from the workers' wages. He claimed it was taking the control of their earnings out of the hands of the employees. What the employers asked to be allowed to deduct should be recov- ! ered in ordinary way at law. I Mr. Kirkman said the company was I entitled to deduct the contribution to, I the superannuation fund. That was for I the benefit of the men themselves, and I last year the company contributed £3506 I towards the superannuation fund. One i I man left the employ of the dairy comI pany, but his wife remained in the comj pany's house, she was supplied with milk | and coal and they had never been paid , I for it. That was the reason the company ! claimed the right to deduct payment i from an employee's wages. ' Mr. John held to his first position. | Mr. Kirkman said that would mean j employers not letting the workers have j goods ahead. i The union asked that a day's labour: I should be nine and a-half hours, and; I after that overtime should be paid. He-. I said the union recognised the men must i | work when required," but none and a-half j ! hours should be the limit for one day's i ■ pay. That was enough for £3 17/ per I week. I Mr. Kirkman said that was the mini--1 mum wage, and the Dairy Company had ; i comparatively few men at that rate of pay. I Mr. John said £3 17/ was not a living i wage for any man in New Zealand to-daj. j Mr. Frankman said it should not be j overlooked that the income of the dairy j industry this year was £3,000.000 less than it was last year. I Agreements were arrived at in a number of machinery clauses; the more important points of wages, hours and deductions from wages will probably be j sent on to the Arbitration Court. i