DEFECTIVE?

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 281, 28 November 1938, Page 8

DEFECTIVE?

AWARD EXAMINED. RING SYSTEM OF KILLING. ! MR. GILMOUR'S OPINION. Tin- opinion that the award wan defective, in that it had not made provision for some limitation of the number of' worker* cmploved in the system of slaughtering in operation at the Went-, field works, was expressed by the; industrial magistrate, Mr. A. -J. fiilmour, in an opinion issued in Wellington. on , ,tn hpplication for interpretation of the I New Zealand (except Westland) Freezing Workers' Award. Although the mutter was brought before tlie ( ourt in the form of a dispute, Maid Mr. (iilmour. the application ■ was actually one for the interpretation j of a clau-e which stated that "on and j after October I. 11I3H, not more than ! workers shall be employed on any | chain." Whether thin pro\ision applied i to the sy-teni of slaughtering in ofiera-j t ion at the Wewttield Freezing Comi pany's works, where the ring system, I | .is distinct froti< a chain method, was | i in use. was the real question for determination by the Court. The ring was designed to operate as a larger capacity unit and the average output of the two conveyors at Westfield wan stated to be between 050 and j 7">o lambs an hour, said Mr. (jiilmour. j Vhe average number of workers em- I i ployed on each was OK. he went on, as | against about half that number of i installations at other works. The i award had not stated "in clear terms"] ; !".«t the restriction relating to the' number of men employed was to apply j to the ring system of slaughtering in operation at Westfield. ! Federation's Contention. Mr. W. K. Siil, appearing for the New Zealand Freezing Workers' Federation, contended, when the dispute was argued before the magistrate, that, under the system in o|>eratiori at Westfield, while more than 35 men were involved, the principle was the same as for a chain. I The term "ring" was one of recent j usage, and there was no real difference I between a ring and a chain. j The crux of the question was whether j the system used at Westfield involved the use of a mechanical chain, said Mr. j Sill. That such mechanical chain was | the dominating feature of the system ! employed in the works, he claimed a= I an indisputable fact. He submitted, therefore, that the general reading of ! the award should interpret any reference to chain as including ring. The need of structural changes if the numbers on the present conveyor systems at West Held were reduced, had been taken into account by the Court of Arbitration, which had, for that purpose, given the firm until October 1. The Westfield Freezing Company had the only sheep and lamb-killing rings in New Zealand, said Mr. C. (J. Wilkin, secretary of the North and South Islands Freezing Companies' Association. The ring, as distinct front the chain, was the recognised system of killing in countries overseas. Three systems had been in operation since 11IT2. namely, the chain system, the ring system, and solo slaughtering. Mr. Wilkin said that two rings at Westfield were the equivalent of four chains. The essential difference between tho two systems of slaughtering was that the ring was designed to operate as a larger capacity unit, while the chain unit consisted of an endless chain. It was straight in most cases, and its capacity was limited by the length of available floor space. The ring system method allowed the chain to travel round corners and up and down and across the floor s|»aee available. He submitted, therefore, that the section of the | award iu question neither included, nor ; had ever lieeu meant to include, the I ring system. To him, he concluded, it appeared that there was a deliberate attempt by the union to scrap the ring system in New j Zealand.