CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17430, 15 April 1922, Page 3

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

FREEZING WORKS SHEPHERDS. Before the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr W. H. Hagger, on Thursday, an implication for an award made by the shepherds employed at freezing works was heard. The workers' assessors were Messrs A. Wilson, S. L. Bennetts, C. L. Brown, and P. C. Ellis (agent) The employers war© represented by Messrs D. P. Garrick and 6. Dixon. The demands made by tha workers wore Hours of Work —The hours of work shall not exceed eight per day, Monday to Saturday, and shall bo worked' between the hours of 7.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Wages—Shepherds employed for the killing season, £5 10s per week; for shepherds employed all the year round, £3 5s per week. Overtime rates shall be paid 8s per hour. Double rates shall be paid for work done on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Sundays, On certain other holidays time and a half ehtyll be paid. The employers then put in the following statement, which was accepted ii» a counter* proposal"The proposals submitted by the union oovering the employment of shepherds at freezing works are objected to on the grounds that their occupation is not on© that lends itself to the condition of an aw aid, and also that similtur proposals were submitted to the' Court of Arbitration in connexion with the recent freezing works difl» pute and the Court refused to impose any such conditions in the awards subsequently made, which are now operating inthe freezing industry throughout the Dominion." Referring to this Mr Kills said that he oould hardly regard it as a counterproposal, because it did n»t recognise the shepherds' claim to an award. The Mseesorß came to the Council to discuss tie matter thorough!?, and to eee whether a settlement could oe reached. The statement that the Court had refused to make an award wa® not correct, for the shepherds had never before put in a separate application. They had goae in under the reoent freezing works case, but this had proved co big that it was impossible for the ahopherds coee to be thoroughly analysed. Mr Dixon, in reply, said there ww no doubt that the shepherds' work did not lend itself to on award; and, anyhow, a Dominion award was made in November last, and the shepherds' claims were then refused by the Ccurt; therefor© the union could hardly Wopen the ca3« until the expiry cf the award. Mr Hagger eaid that the union had com-. pHed with the provisions in the statute, and he thought it was o.uite possible to make on award, The men- oertainly had to meet trains oirly and late, but an agreement oould be reached having provisions specially applicable to the class of work Mr Ellis then as instance of the hours worked by one man in. aix months. Hhe average' time worked was eighty-three hours por week. The shortest week worked was aixty-fivo hours> and the longest 102 hours. It was not reasonable to expect men to work those hours.. Mr Ellis then asked Mr Dixon if he were prepared to discuss the matter, and Mr Dixon replied that they had stated the case in the statement. The Commissioner: You are standing firm, and adhere to your claim that there should be no award. If that is so. the matter had better go to the' Court. In this refusal to discuss a settlement, you are nullifying the work of the Conciliation Council. Under these oiiciunstances, it would not be fair to ask Mr Ellis to show his handi. After a lengthy conference, Mr Hagger announced that the employers were not prepared to make any advance, and stood by the objection they had raised, and the matter would have to go to the Arbitration Court for settlement. '