WATERSIDE AWARD

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 181, 1 August 1936, Page 16

WATERSIDE AWARD

AMENDMENT SOUGHT.

EMPLOYERS' OBJECTIONS. OUTLINED TO COURT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. An application for amendment of the waterside workers' award to provide for a 40-hour week was heard by the Arbitration Court to-dav. Mr. T. O. Bishop appeared for the employers, and Mr. J. Roberts for the waterside workers.

Employers of waterside labour, said Mr. Bishop, objected to the application of the workers on several grounds. The application was contrary to the spirit of the legislation, which was designed

to give greater leisure to workers at present employed for periods in excess of 40 hours a week; it was not a bona fide application for a shorter working week and did not disclose its real object. If the application were granted it would not have the effect intended by the Legislature, viz., to shorten a higher working week down to one of 40 hours, but would in fact have no effect upon the hours at present being worked. Not Intended by Legislature. The Legislature could not have intended, 6aid Mr. Bishop, that section 21 of tlie Industrial Conciliation and Aibitration Amendment Act should bo used on the eve or the expiry of an award to secure tho introduction into that award of an entirely new principle which had never previously been embodied in an award. The award expired on September 30, and any amendment of the award made could therefore be effective only until that date unless the award continued in operation until superseded by a new one. The cancellation of the registration of the union would prevent the award continuing in force beyond tho date of its expiry. The terms and conditions of employment on the waterfront would have to be negotiated between tho union and the empoyers, and the latter would be prejudiced in their negotiations by the fixation of hours by the Court at this juncture.

Coastal Shipping Affected. Further, Mr. Bishop said that if the application were granted coastal shipping companies would be unable to carry on their business successfully and profitably, which meant that they could not for long carry them on at all. With increased costs, the companies could not render tho same service to other New Zealand industries as they did at present, therefore their efficiency as gauged by the service rendered to other industries would be impaired. It would therefore not be practicable to carry oil the industry under a 40-hour week.

In support of the summary of the employers' objections, Mr. Bishop said the application before the Court was an important one, because it was tho first which had come before the Court referring to a section of the transport industry. It was important because the decision given would undoubtedly be used as a precedent in submissions to be made to the Court in respect of applications for other sections of tho transport industry or in negotiations of agreements for other transport workers, and also because tne transport industry was the concern of every other industry in New Zealand.

The average waterside worker seldom got -'t0 hours' work in a week, continued Mr. Bishop, and ihe wages of waterside workers had been fixed by tho Arbitration Court in full recognition of that fact. Tlio-water-'de worker averaged 25 per cent less working time than the labourer, and his wage rate had to be increased by a proportionate amount to enable him "to earn a living wage.

The application did not disclose how it was desired the limitation of hours should be applied. As some work had to be perforate I after 5 o'clock on practically every working day throughout all ports of New Zealand, it would be clear that one effect of a reduction so applied would be only to make it necessary to pay overtime for work now performed at ordinary time rates. On Its Own Merits. Mr. Bishop submitted that if an increase in the rates of pay was justifiable by the conditions of waterside work, then it should be sought for on its ow.i merits and not under the disguise of application for a reduction of hours. Moreover, it should bo reserved until a now agreement was negotiated after September 30, when the award would expire in respect of which tho application was made. For the workers, Mr. Roberts submitted figures to show that the average weekly hours of watersiders, including overtime, were not more than 27. The men were not anxious to work overtime, but would prefer a regular week of ordinary time. There was a good deal of discrimination on tho part of employers, some men being crowded out at a call for labour and others receiving almost continuous work.

An employer should not object to a 40-hour week when he- could not guarantee more than a 27-hour week, said Mr. Roberts. A memorandum of Mr. Justice Higgins was quoted in which it was laid down that, an employer .of waterside labour should make himself responsible for the maintenance of a worker and his dependants for the hours in which no work was offering, although the worker held himself ih readiness.

Mr. Roberts said ho had calculated the proportion of production and distribution, costs due to waterside labour, and had found it negligible. In the case of butter, for example, tho cost of waterside labour-was only oneTiftieth of a penny per pound. The workers were hoping for the establishment throughout the Dominion of the bureau system of employing labour. It could easily be managed, and would result in a perfectly fair distribution of the available work. The Court reserved its decision.