FACTORY LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 113, 14 May 1936, Page 10

FACTORY LAW.

MOVE TO AMEND. BILL BEFORE HOUSE. SECOND READING DEBATE. | LABOUR JUSTIFICATION. 11 (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. In moving the. second reading of the Factories. Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, the Minister of Labour, Mr. Armstrong, said that to some extent it was on the lines of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill and the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill. After the lengthy discussion that had taken place on the former lie felt sure that of the Opposition would not take up the same amount of time discussing ''an innocent bill of this description." Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): You said the other bill was innocent. The Minister said that the need for amending the factory laws was long overdue. The Government bad been urged to alter the industrial laws and even if there had not been a change in administration the late Government ■would have arrived at the conclusion that there was a need to overhaul the legislation. In the bill there was no attempt to consolidate factories legislation, nor was there an attempt to deal with the question in a drastic way. The Government was concerned with conditions of employment in the factories. He knew it coiild be argued that New Zealand conditions compared favourably with those of other countries. Possibly they were a long way ahead, hut it appeared to him that conditions in the Dominion were nothing like up to the standard that could and should be maintained. „- In explaining the measure clause by clause the Minister referred to the section which provides that wages shall not be reduced on account of the reduction of working hours. There were some employers, said Mr. Armstrong, ■who would resent the legislation and would seek to "take it-out of the hides of the employees." They might say to their workers that there was no employment for them. It had been provided therefore that no person employed in any factory at the commencement of the Act should be dismissed nor his wages reduced by reason merely of any reduction or alteration made in his working hours pursuant to the Act. Where any person was dismissed or the wages reduced after the commencement of the Act the burden of proving that the dismissal or reduction was not a breach of the provisions of the Act Would be on the occupier of the factory. The clause should not be necessary, but was put in on account of one or two etnployers who might otherwise take advantage of the position.

Work Done Outside a Factory. ■Explaining the clause which' l gives pqwer to the Government by Order-in-Couneil to deal with work done outside a factoi'y—work in the homes —the Minister said that at the present time the owner of a factory was not subject to award conditions in cases where work was done away from the factory. The employer did not have to comply With any of the labour laws. Exploitation was done under the present system and that would not be permitted. The bjll would do away with "back yard factory" sweating. He explained that licenses would be issued and inspectors Wpuld have to be satisfied that the place where work was to be done was suitable arid the rates of pay equivalent to or higher than those ruling for work done in the factory. It was hoped to do away With a lot of this class of work, " though he did not want to abolish it altogether if he could control it. Another provision, said the Minister, prescribed the minimum rate of wages as 15/ a week. At present the minimum -• rate was 10/, and this was traced back as far as the 'nineties'. In some factories this was paid, but in . most cases _ the Arbitration Court had increased it. At present it took five years to reach 30/ per week. The bill proposed that by jS» half-yearly rises of 4/ the wage of £2 would be reached in three years. There was some difference of opinion on the committee as to whether the £2 should be-reached as rapidly as that, but there was no difference of opinion about what the minimum wage should be. The half-yearly rises would put the young people on a better footing. Another clause stipulated that length of service must be taken into, account, irrespec-\ tive of where it 'was worked. The Minister detailed additional holiday provisions and the step that had been taken to prevent the practice of factories dismissing men before Christmas and re-engaging them after to avoid paying for holidays. Only a few, he was ' glad to say, had done that sort of thing. In Other Countries.

Referring to tlie shorter working week, Mr. Armstrong paid it liad beep stated that New Zealand was going to stand alone. He pointed out that New South Wales did not object to the 40liour week. It left it to arbitration. Mr. W. Ji Poison (National, Stratford): That principle does not appeal to the Minister. Mr. Armstrong continued that in Victoria the Government reported in favour of a 40-hour week without wage reductions to be established by law. Tasmania's policy was to reduce hours of ■work to 35 per week. Mr. Poison: What did they do in Tasmania? The Minister: They have not done it yet, but they arc going to. There is a Labour Government in Tasmania, and, like this Government, it has not been in office long enough to work wonders, but if a Labour Premier says it is going to be done you can bet your boots it will be done. The Minister went on to say that the 40-hour week was in operation in Now Zealand in some places and in the United States it was enjoyed by six million workers. New Zealand was in a better position to concede improvements. in conditions of employment than any other country in the world. "I have received a communication from the Auckland branch of the Farmers' Union, of which the member for Stratford said the Dominion president was favouring a sixday week for dairy factories, and stating that there was no reason why it should not be introduced," added Mr. Armstrong. "The day is not far distant wc will be talking about a 25 <jr a 30-hour week." •