EXEMPTION WANTED.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 293, 11 December 1929, Page 10

EXEMPTION WANTED.

FREEZING WORKS AWARD.

THREE COMPANIES APPLY.

"BOBBY" CALVES AND DAIRYING,

Applications were made in the Arbitration Court this morning for the exemption from the Freezing Works and Related Trades Award 'by R. and W\ Hellaby, Ltd., Auckland, the Feilding Bacon Co., and the Co-op. Dairy Producers' Freezing Co., Ltd., Wellington.

Oh behalf of tho bacon company, it Was submitted by Mr. Anderson that the firm was not concerned with any award affecting slaughtering, aiid the amount of work put through was so small in comparison with its mainstay that it Would place it at a disadvantage to similar companies to bo brought Under the award. At the present time tho firm operated under tho Bacon Factories aw.ai'd.

. Mr. W. E. Sill, advocate for the union, in opposing the applications, said the bacoii company was extensively engaged in the " bobby " calf trade. " The trouble is that the firm is not satisfied with carrying on a legitimate bacoii bUsinesß, and wants, to butt in oii the freezing works yidustry with bobby calves," commented the president of the COurt. (Mr. Justice Frazor). Partial exemption might he possible in the case Under review. It was stated that in the past three years the company had put through some 30,000 '"bObby" calves at the rate of 7d a calf, whereas the Feilding Freezing Works had to pay 2/2 an hour fOr boning work. "It is hardly a trifling thing," observed his 'Honor in adjOUi'iiing the application pending Hie receipt of further information from the employers. In supporting the application of R. aiid W. Hellaby, Ltd., Mh F, A. Hellaby strongly protested against the inclusion of its workers under the award, oil the grounds that the work Of the company was continuous, aiid uOt seasOnalj as was the case of the freezing industry. It was hot principally engaged iii freezing irheat fOr expOrt or sale as ffozeii meat, and .was already subject tq a multiplicity of" awards. It therefore suggested that the men affected in the application be joined to one or other of tho awards to which the Company was at present a party. $ Mi - ; Sill argued that as the firm engaged ill operations subsidiary to the freezing works industry that it should be brought into line With freezing wOrks. His HonOr said the difficulty was Over the firm's export business in respect to by-products. Mr. Hellaby said that that was Only incidental to the general operations. The Court decided to consider the matter. No slaUghtei' of any kind was undertaken by the Dairy Producers' Freezing Co., according to a statement haiided in by Mr. Anderson. The business Of the company consisted of handling, storing, and shipping dairy produce of all kiiids, the cool storage of fruit and butehen' small goods, and, oii occasions, sniail quantities Of killed aiid dressed lamb Or veal .were kept in cooi stOre till required.' His Honor said that if the company Confined itself to tte storage of only frilit aiid dairy produce they woukl be all right, but the trouble was' that it persisted in engaging in other people's btisiiiess,. It could only come uilder the award sO far as tlie handling of the meat was concerned. The iine had to be draWn somewhere. Was the Court to allOw a big concern to do 49 per cent of freezing $f and say it was exempted from the freezing award because it handled 51 per cent of dairy produce? Tito application was also adjOurhed, pending the receipt of further information from the company relative tO the extent Of its 'business, apart from the handling Of fruit and dairy produce.