COMPANY AND WORKERS

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22894, 15 December 1939, Page 10

COMPANY AND WORKERS

OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED BASIS OF DISPUTE The facts leading up to the dispute are agreed upon by both sides, with one exception—the point as to whether the manning of each of the existing two chains by three extra men at the company’s expense was a temporary agreement. When a dispute arose over the manning of the chains, the company agreed to provide three additional men at its own expense for each chain. “That was an arrangement entered into to enable us to get over the difficulty of not being able to build a third sticking pen during the working season,” said Mr A. C. Wells, the manager of the company. “We had to make temporary arrangements, and they were of a temporary nature. A present of money was made under it to the men, and it could not be expected to continue.”

The reply of the Federation of Labour’s disputes committee was that it did not look upon the arrangement as a temporary one, to be upset by either side, and that the understanding was that further consideration to any proposed change was to be given by the disputes committee. Statements setting out the attitude of the company, the workers, and the Federation of Labour were officially issued last evening. “We feel that the employers have 1 taken precipitate action in locking the men out,” said Mr H. G. Kilpatrick, secretary of the union. “We think that the best method for all concerned would have been for the company to have accepted the offer of the Federation of Labour and referred the whole question to the disputes committee of the freezing industry, whose decision would have been binding on both the union and the employers, in the meantime work to proceed on the basis of the status quo. The men will offer their services on Friday morning .on the conditiohs pertaining bn Thursday morning.” The hope of the Federation of Labour that the question would be referred to the disputes committee provided by the award was expressed by Mr R. A. Brooks. “We had hopes,” he said, “that the company would have allowed work to continue until such time as the disputes committee had met. Tho matter could quite easily have been left until after the Christmas, holidays. We are still endeavouring to have the disputes committee set up. We consider that that should be done.” Management Clause " The company’s claim to the right to work a third chain was repeated in an official statement. “The position is that at the company’s Canterbury works, opportunity was taken during the recent slack season to make provision for a small extra slaughtering chain in addition to the two existing slaughtering chains, which comprise 35 men each,” the company said. “This additional chain was installed for the purpose of augmenting the kill, but mainly to provide employment for spare men to take the place of anyone absent on the No. 1 and No. 2 chains on account of sickness, absence, or other cause. There is no provision in the award as to the number of chains that any works may operate. “Notwithstanding, however, that it is competent for the company ’to install this third chain, the men object to it, on the grounds that men required to fill vacancies should be drawn from other sources. That means, actually, that such men would be carried by the company at work which is not really necessary and, of course, at extra expense to the company. “The company holds that it is within its rights in' requiring the third chain to be utilised for this purpose. The management clause in the Freezing Workers’ Award reads: ‘Subject to the special provisions of this award, the employers shall retain and have full power to manage and control their own business and the conduct of their emnloyees in connexion therewith, and to make reasonable rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this award relating to the management thereof, and to the hiring, conduct, duties and dismissal of persons in their employment.’ ”