EMPLOYERS AND 40-HOUR WEEK

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21806, 11 June 1936, Page 9

EMPLOYERS AND 40-HOUR WEEK

ATTITUDE INDICATED BY SECRETARY APPLICATIONS to court fob extension ASSOCIATION TBUO&A3I.) AUCKLAND, June 10. An important indication of the attitude of a section of the employers toward the 40-hour week, was given in > statement made by Mr T. O. Bishop, Lcretary of the New Zealand EmployFederation, al a Conciliation Court «tting in Auckland. The case was the Dominion clothing trades dispute, and riaims for a Dominion award put SaSrTbv the New Zealand Fedeated Clothing Trade Employees’ Union included provision for a 40-hcur week. -We realise it is the Government’s .leslre to see a 40-hour week inaugurated in as many industries •as posdble in New Zealand,” said Mr Bishop. -With that knowledge, we are not puttine up useless opposition to a reduction of hours; but it must be understood that the introduction of tjie 40hour week in this trade will inevitably have the effect of increasing costs, in addition to many other increases imposed dircctiv bv the amended legisJaticn Ris oP en t 0 lhe employers to apply to the Court of Arbitration for an extension of hours to 44. We would prefer, however, to arrange a 44-hour week with the union, even if that were to mean the payment of overtime rates xor four hours a week; but unless we can reach some such understanding as that, the employers at this stage are not prepared to accept the 40-hour week without subsequent application for an extension to the court.” The union representatives intimated that they would consider the question in the luncheon adjournment; but on resuming later, they announced that they were not prepared to agree to. any hours in exces of 40. If they did agree to any extended hours under the conditions laid down, it was stated, it would be an act of disloyalty to the Government and to other unions. The question of hours was held over.