DISPUTE NOT SETTLED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21747, 1 April 1936, Page 6

DISPUTE NOT SETTLED

EMPLOYEES OF POWER BOARDS

REFERRED TO ARBITRATION COURT

The major issues in the dispute before the Conciliation Council yesterday concerning linesmen and their assistants employed by electric power boards in North Canterbury and MidCanterbury are to be referred to the Arbitration Court. No agreement was reached on the chief points m dispute —increased wages to bring them back to the current rates in 1931, a shorter working week of 40 hours, the term of the award, and conditions for overtime work. The application for a new award was made by the Christchurch branch of the Amalgamated Engineering and Allied Trades Industrial Union of Workers, and the respondents were the electric power boards in North Canterbury and Mid-Canterbury. The Conciliation Commissioner. Mr S. Ritchie, presided. The assessors for the employees were Messrs J. Stoddart (Ashburton), D. Griffiths (North Canterbury), J. R. Cox, and G. T. Thurston (Christchurch). The employers were represented by Messrs F. A Lewthwaite (Banks Peninsula), L. C' Vicary (Springs-Ellesmere), A. Buckingham (North Canterbury), and D. I. Macdonald. The employers objected to the employees' proposals, and sought the continuation of the present award for not less than two years. Shortly after the proceedings opened, the legality of the discussions was questioned by Mr Macdonald. The award under which the men had been working for the last year, he said, did not expire until to-day, and it was debatable whether the council was justified in considering the terms of a new award before the old one had run out. To his knowledge, the terms of a new award had never been discussed while the old one was operating. Mr Ritchie answered that it was not his duty, when the proceedings were being instituted, to consider whether a sitting of the council would be legal. The point raised by Mr Macdonald would have to be considered, and he suggested that the sitting should proceed in the meantime. He would look into the question, and give his opinion. At the conclusion of the sitting it was argued that the Arbitration Court could not make a new award until the old one had expired, therefore referring a dispute to the Arbitration Court did not constitute making anew award, in those circumstances the question of legality of the proceedings did not arise.

40-Hour Week Demanded

Agreement was reached on a number of minor points in the proposed award. On the wages claims by the employees, however, the discussions indicated at an early stage that there was little possibility of settlement by the council. In the employees' claims, the wages for linesmen were set down at not less than 2s 4|d an hour, and those for linesmen's assistants at not less than. 2s 2Jd an hour. These claims. Mr Macdonald submitted, were definitely unreasonable. The employees were trying to get back to the rates current in 1931, and also to have shorter working hours—the employees asked for a 40-hour week. If these proposals were adopted, there would be a very big increase in costs to the boards.

In reply to a question by Mi- Macdonald, Mr Thurston said the employees would not agree to accept any wages less than those sought in the claims. He also stated that the employees would not agree to work more than 40 hours a week. They sought an eight-hour day for the first five days of the week. In their proposals for overtune clauses, the employees asked that all overtime should be paid for at the rate of time and a half for the first four hours and double time thereafter. The counter-proposal of the employers was that payment should be computed at the rate of time and a quarter for the first two hours and time and a half' thereafter. On the term of the new award, also, there was disagreement. The employees asked that the term be 12 months, and would not agree to the employers' proposal that the term be two years. The employers stated that short-term awards were unsettling, but the employees claimed that until*conditions were stabilised, it was undesirable to have a longer term. On resuming in the afternoon, Mr Macdonald said the employers were prepared to offer an all-round increase in wages of ljd an hour, which would bring them' to within Id or 2d of the rates existing in 1931. They were also willing to include Show Day in the list of recognised holidays, but they must adhere to the 44-hour week. Subject to travelling time being paid for at the ordinary rates, the employers were willing to alter the overtime scale to the following: Time and a quarter for the first two hours; time and a half for the next two hours; and double time thereafter.

After a short retirement, the employees' representatives announced that they could not agree to the counter proposals offered by the employers and on the motion of Mr Thurston the dispute was referred to the Arbitration Court.