LIMITATION ON "CHAINS"

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22570, 28 November 1938, Page 8

LIMITATION ON "CHAINS"

Award for Freezing Industry

IMPORTANT POINT DISCUSSED

Whether a clause in the New Zealand Freezing Workers’ Award limiting the number of workers on any chain to 35 should apply to the system of slaughtering at the Westfield freezing works is discussed in an opinion delivered by Mr J. A. Gilmour, S.M., acting for fne Arbitration Court. Mr Gilmour finds that the award has pot stated in clear terms that the restriction is to apply to the system of slaughtering at Westfield: but he also finds that the award is defective in that provision is not made for some limitation of the number of workers. A dispute on this point led to a strike recently at the Westfield works. According to legal argument discussed by Mr Gilmour, the “ring” system, introduced at the Westfield works, is the only one of its kind in New Zealand. Two conveyors are in use there, the operating length of one being 370 ft and file other 350 ft, compared with the average length of a straight killingchain at other works of about 120 ft. On each “ring” at Westfield are employed, on an average, 68 men, compared with about half that number at installations at other works. In evidence when the case was argued, it was claimed that the application of the restriction to 35 workers would mean the abandonment of the "ring” system by the company, thus involving structural alterations at an approximate cost of £SOOO. and a reduction of the output of the works to half its present capacity. “In framing the relevant clause of the award, the Court made no reference to the ‘ring’ system,” says the opinion ■ given by Mr Gilmour, “and_ inmy opinion the words ‘or ring,’ which have been added after the word ‘chain’ in the clause dealing with the killing of bobby calves —an iraportafat branch

of the Westfield Company’s activities —cannot, in the circumstances, be reap Into the clause relating to the restriction on the number of workers. Put in another way, the award has not stated ‘in clear *~rms’ that the restriction is to apply to the ring system of slaughtering in operation at WestAdmittedly the Court allowed sufficient time to enable the company, u bound by the clause, to make the necessary structural alterations: but if the intention had been to impose a restriction which would have the effect of reducing the company's output to han its present capacity, one would expect to find this intention unequivocally expressed in the award. On the other hand, of course, one would expect the Court to give its reasons for confining the limitation to the chain system, if such were its intention, and having regard accordingly to all the relevant considerations. I have come to the conclusion, not without doubt, that tne award is defective in that provision is not made for some limitation of the number of workers employed on the system of slaughtering in operation at the Westfield works.”