BAKING TRADE DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25365, 12 December 1947, Page 9

BAKING TRADE DISPUTE

employers refuse DEMAND

negotiations for SETTLEMENT The possibility of a strike in two o f the biggest bakeries in Christchurch— Stacey and Hawker and C. ■C Boon and Company—next Monday i'.'as indicated yesterday afternoon when the master bakers refused to accede to the workers’ demand that deductions of pay for not working o n Saturdays should cease. A strike ;c however, not likely, as negotiations were entered into in Wellington yesterday afternoon for a settlement of the dispute. The setting up of a committee under the Strikes and Lock-Outs Emergency Regulations was considered a possibility. Asking the Canterbury branch of the Baking Trades' Union for a final decision before 5 p.m. yesterday, the employers in Christchurch, through their secretary (Mr G. R. Burrowes), emphasised that the matter “is urgent, as it has already been mentioned in the papers and if the strike is to take place we propose to publish the correspondence between us.’’ No comment was obtainable from the union through its secretary (Mr M. C. Gillard) when a copy of the letter sent by the master bakers was referred to him. Mr Gillard said that every point raised would be answerr i by the union. The letter from the employers, signed by Messrs C. E. Boon and F. H. Hawker, to the union read: “You say that your union has decided after a postal ballot to strike as from Monday morning next. December 15. unless we agree to the demand in your letter. You know that such a strike in two large bakeries will result in discomfort, and indeed hardship, to the community and citizens of Christchurch, because the quantity of bread baked in our businesses is a substantial proportion of the bread required for Christchurch and the surrounding districts. The result of such a strike will be a scarcity of bread in Christchurch, and will be an injury to the community as well c.s to our two companies. “Illegal Strike” “The ground given in your letter for the threatened illegal strike is that our companies have deducted from the wages of members of your union the amounts due for default by their refusal to work on Saturdays. You will remember that earlier in the year this matter was settled in favour of our companies in proceedings taken by the Labour Department at the request of the union.

“Your union, therefore, after its defeat in the Courts of the land, now seeks to get what it wants by an illegal strike which will hurt and inconvenience the people of Christchurch. “This threat and the language in which it is made are without justification, especially as negotiations foi a*new award are under way and the hearing has been fixed before the Conciliation Commissioner on February 4 next. “The deductions referred to in your letter are deductions for time which your members refuse to work in face of a decision of the Court that thev ere under a duty to do so. Your members demand that they shall be paid for time they do not work. We would point out also that members of yqu» union employed by our firms are well paid by any standards and are at present receiving from approximately £8 10s a week to almost £l2 a week while the award rate is £7 Bs. We would also point out that the wage bill of our two companies is approximately 50 oer cent, more than in 1939.’ The union well knew, raid the lettei. that the companies had always mei their employees and the members of the union in a fair and generous spirit and they were unable to agree to the demand and took exception to the terms o* the demand

Summary by Employers The position .between the companies and the union was summarised as follows in the letter:—The Court had de cided that the members of the union were bound to work on Saturday if they were asked to do so. The union members had refused to obey the decision of the Court. The union members threatened to strike unless they were paid for time they did not work If the union thought it had a good case for its claim, it could submit that claim at the hearing before the Conciliation Commissioner on February 4 next, in less than two months.

“We feel, therefore, that we are justified in asking your union to reconsider its decision to strike.” said the letter. “But we say plainly that if there is a strike it will be a strike without necessity or justification. Your union, not our companies, will be responsible for it.”