FREEZING WORKS DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18926, 15 February 1927, Page 11

FREEZING WORKS DISPUTE.

THE MEN'S CLAIMS. CASE DEPOSE ARMTRAiIO.N COURT. ' -.7H>: :>2253 apec-M Strrlee.J WELLINGTON. .Febiuary i-L T;;,: Dua:iu! ( ;.-i .Freezing Workers' -.lispu:o was heard.by th..- Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Trazer today. Tlie workers .vero represent :■ 1 by Messrs W. K. .Sill (Auckland), and !•". U. Ei'.h (Christchurch), and the employers by Mes.-rs i\ V. Sanderson, tor the votiipanirs. C. G.-Wilkin, secretary of the South Island Freezing Companies' Association, and .1. Milne, chairman of the New Zealand freezing Companies' Association. The claims of the workers, n.f outlined by Mr SiTl. were the deletion «•:' the clause affecting the liours of Chamber hands lo bring them under the .-<:inie hours as other workers; overtime rates in line with those of other awards; prevention of the alleged abuse of tho contract y-ystem by employers; the proportion of learners to be one in ten, instead of one in three: an increase of the mini-mum average wage, to £3 12s a week, as the work, once casual, only at tho beginning and close of the season, was now casual all through; the deletion of the words "on a working day preceding a holiday,'.' so. that the worker would, in effect, be given three days' notice of tho approaching termination of his employment; an increase of 10 per cent, all round in wages, in which application the points to' be considered would be the standard of living, and tho position of the industry. The 1914 standard, said Mr Sill, could not be adopted to : day, and it should bo on the standards of to-day that the award was based, and- not on those of 13 years ago. To-day, workers v in this industry were in a worse position than in 11)14. The position of the industry, however, did not justify tho refusal of their applications though admittedly it was unsatisfactory. In some respects it was due to an unwarranted incrcaso in the number of establishments and over-capitalisation. Mr Sill nlso suggested that the increase in management and office staff charges for 43 companies, instead of 28 in 1914; increased-expenses of buying staffs in competition; the payment of excessive prices for stock (not justified by Smithfield partly); and allowances of rebates and payment of royalties to secure Utock, as-further causes for tho position of,the companies. The increases asked for, concluded Mr Bill, were relatively small and their effect on profitable companies would be negligible. '