REDUCED EARNINGS?

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 164, 14 July 1930, Page 8

REDUCED EARNINGS?

TYPOGRAPHERS , CLAIM. NEW PIECE-WORK CLiUJSE. COURT .REFUSES AMENDMENT. "I have no hesitation in saying that the award which the Court is asked to' amend has reduced the earnings of some piece-workers concerned by a greater amount than lias ever previously been inllieled on any body of workers by the Court, -, said Mr. C. IT. Chapman, M.P., in the Arbitration Court this morning, in .supporting an application by the New Zealand Typographers' Union for an amendment of ;t certain piece-work clause in its award. Mr. Chapman said that the reductions were so largo thai they were even more than were asked, by the employers. ■• Piece-work machine compositors are working under protest, in view of the »rcut reduction in their earnings, due to tin , wrong interpretation placed on the award," he added. " The reductions have been excessive, and range from between IJO/ and ,C 1 a week, and 1 have, never seen the piece-workers in such a state of confusion as they are at the moment us a result.'' In opposing the application, Mr. (!. C. Codlin isa'id Ihiit the employers claimed (here was no justification for the "reopening of the piece-work clause, and had refused to be joined as a party to the. proceedings. The employers had always been ready and willing to meet their employees. The reductions were not as serious as Mr. Chapman would have the Court believe. There might be isolated cases where earnings had been appreciably reduced. In one of Auckland's newspaper offices men working a .'!.'! 1-3 hour week had earned C!) 0/5 a week in !!>.!!>. as compared with £8 11/1 for a .'54-hour week under the existing award. He suggested that the matter in dispute might be discussed in conference with the parties concerned, and the president oi the Coin , l. The employers' idea, however, was that the workers wanted to return to the arbitrary system, and would reject any other offer made. Powers of the Court. His Honor said the majority of the' Court had made the award, and said exactly what it intended to eay. The mere fact that the award had possibly worked out unevenly in some eases did not constitute a defect, as the Court could not guarantee the result of any award. lie was not wedded to the method of computation now in force, and he wa.> willing to assist the parties if a better system could be arrived at. The award could not be amended without the consent of both parties, so a conference, at which he was willing to net chairman, was the only means of dealing with the matter. "My aim is that an equal return should be given for an equal amount of work," said his Honor.

Mr. Chapman: That is nil we want. We can take it, however, that the application is refused?

His Honor: As it stands it hae t.o be refused. . Legally speaking there is no defect in the award, but I am not prepared to give a decision until we sit in conference.

Mr. Chapman: I would like to point out that the conference is now loaded against us. .

His Honor said he could not help that, in tho circumstances.

The Court was then adjourned