Dairy Industry Dispute

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25061, 18 December 1946, Page 6

Dairy Industry Dispute

At the end of the week it was reported from Hamilton that a meeting of dairy workers at Frankton had resolved that “ drastic action ” had to be taken to redress the “ untenable position ” of the workers in an industry which was losing experienced hands and, it was implied, failing to attract and hold new workers. What was meant by drastic action was at the explained by Mr C. L. Collier, secretary of a northern branch of the men’s union, who said that, if the basic wage increases demanded were not granted, work would cease. These and other demands were communicated by the secretary of the national union to the Dairy Factory Employers’ Association by telephone, and communicated in the form of an ultimatum: work would cease unless they were met by (this) Wednesday. As a message printed this morning shows, the union’s letter, which followed, djd not repeat the ultimatum, and the employers may be justified in assuming that, between telephoning and writing, moderation began to assert itself. The assumption has still to be verified; for the letter merely sets out the union’s demands in respect of rates and conditions and, since it does not withdraw the peremptory notice of a time-limit for settlement, leaves that as a threat hanging in the air. While it hangs, the union’s procedure looks bad, and it will not look much better until all talk of drastic action and time-limits is officially disowned. There is no warrant for it in the facts. The employers* have not been unwilling to meet the men and work out a new agreement. It does not seem that they have suggested, and they certainly do not now suggest, that there is no need or room for one. Of the delays in conciliation proceedings, the employers have been responsible for only one, when they indicated that a meeting in December would for various reasons be impossible. In August, proceedings were adjourned by consent till October, when the workers were unable to attend. When the employers then proposed a November date, the workers rejected it; and the workers’ present action breaks across the commissioner’s tentative arrangement to resume negotiation. That is the recent background of present events; and there is nothing in it to explain or excuse a sudden lurch into aggressive tactics.

Meanwhile, and most curiously, the Government intervened, deleting by Order-in-Council dairy factories and creameries from the second schedule of the Factories Act, 1946, with the automatic effect of advancing sharply the wage rate payable for Sunday and holiday work. If dairy workers have had a grievance in this respect—they are only one group of several, who regularly work Sundays—it is not new. It was not inadvertently

created in this year’s legislation, or inadvertently continued. Dairy factory workers have I been subject to this schedule for years. The Government saw no reason, and was shown no reason, to exclude them from the schedule two or three months ago; it has suddenly seen reason, and acted on it, now, while direct action was threatened. If the workers’ procedure looks bad, the Government’s looks worse. The employers’ protest is on all grounds thoroughly justified.