DELAY IN ISSUE OF AWARDS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22465, 28 July 1938, Page 10

DELAY IN ISSUE OF AWARDS

CRITICISM OF SECOND COURT RECENT decisions QUESTIONED STEPS FOR REMOVAL OF ALLEGED ANOMALIES Complaints of delays in the issue of awards and allegations that the Second Court of Arbitration had departed from principles which the tribunal had itself fixed were made yesterday by the Canterbury district council of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, through its president (Mr J. Roberts). The suggestion was made that steps would be taken to remove anomalies stated to have appeared m recent awards. It was also claimed that the Court was not observing the requirements of the act that it should make awards within one month of the date of hearing of applications. . Great dissatisfaction was being caused by the delay in the issue of awards, said Mr Roberts. Some cases, such as the Dominion shop assistants, the chemists, and the grocers, had been heard as long as seven or eight weeks ago, but no award had been issued so far. “This is indeed a very serious matter for the workers concerned, because every week that the Court delays making an award a loss is made by the workers of any increase in wages which they should receive. It seems high time that the Government should amend the act to compel the Court to make all wages retrospective from the date of the hearing. This might have some salutary effect on the Court itself, because it seems to be quite wrong that workers should be penalised by delay over which they have no control. The law requires all awards to be made within a month. Why should the workers be the losers if the Court is responsiblefor any delay?” “Drift from Precedence” The second Court of Arbitration, said Mr Roberts, had drifted entirely from precedent by awarding one condition of hours for one set of workers and a different condition of hours for another set of workers employed in the same establishment. In the three Dominion storemen’s disputes, heard in Auckland, the second Court had based all wages on the 40-hour week; but in the case of the clerical workers’ dispute, an award covering which the Court recently issued, the tribunal hpd left the hours to follow the “house or the Shops and Offices Act, as the case might be. That meant, in effect, that storemen would be paid the equivalent hourly rate extra for hours of work exceeding 40, and up to 44 weekly, and that clerks employed in the same establishments would receive no extra Payment whatsoever when he or she was worked 44 hours. Guidance in Conciliation “To show how the employers are greatly guided by the decisions of the Courts of Arbitration, it should be pointed out that the fruit and produce stores in the Dominion were struck out of the Dominion storemen s dispute so that the parties could enter into a separate award for the workers Cbncerned,” said the Canterbury president. “Since the Court made the storemen’s award, these parties have met, and the employers, acting on the principle set out by the Court in the storemen’s award—that wages should be based on a 40-hour week—came to a complete agreement with the workers Under it, storemen’s wages for fruit and grain stores are based on a 40-hour week, and extra hours worked are paid for.” . .... Yet the second Court, which set this principle for employers to follow, allowed the clerical workers m the stores to work 44 hours without any extra rate of payment. When ‘backing and filling” of this description on the part of a tribunal such as the Arbitration Court occurred was it any wonder that the workers were dissatisfied? “Astounding Judgment “Again, in the recently made clothing trades’ award, we have the astounding decision of the Court in regard to rates for male workers, in this particular case workers who have served a five years’ a §P5 6 i ltlce fu have actually been awarded less than the Court’s own unskilled rate of wages of 2s 4d an hour. The award has put these male workers m a relatively worse position than they have ever grievance was also felt on the part of the clothing trades workers that the Court had set out what purported to be a weekly wage. The Court now permitted certain deductions to be made in the weekly rate, though any time lost would not be due to th-. workers’ sickness or default. In the past, these workers had been paid on an hourly rate; if they had been left on that rate they would receive the benefit of the Court’s skilled or semiskilled workers’ rates. By alio win-, deductions to be made the Court had. in effect, made the work of a qasual nflturc • “No doubt efforts will be made in the very near future to have these anomalies removed,” concluded Mr Roberts.