CARPENTERS’ CLAIMS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25637, 28 October 1948, Page 3

CARPENTERS’ CLAIMS

ARBITRATION COURT HEARING (P.A.) AUCKLAND. Oct. 27. Opposition to suburban work claims by the New Zealand Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union was expressed by employers’ representatives during the hearing of the claim for the new carpenters’ award in the Arbitration Court to-day. They considered provision for the payment of travelling time to carpenters employed outside their shop did not fulfil the functions for which it was intended, that it encouraged men to find work as far away as possible from/their homes, and that it would prompt workers in other industries to seek similar provisions in their awards. Evidence was given by the employers of carpenters who said men had to be paid travelling time when employed outside the shop. In some cases prosecutions by the Labour Department were pending. “Shop.” as mentioned in the suburban work clause, was held to mean ‘workshop” and not employers’ premises. The intention of the Auckland Harbour Board before the expiry of the award about to be made to embark on a £1,3Q0,000 job, requiring the employment of between 40 and 50 carpenters for concrete boxing, was mentioned by the board’s representative, Mr J. R. Sutton. He was contesting the provision being sought by the union dealing with the margin between wage rates for skilled and unskilled labour. “The carpenters required will not be available living within one mile and a half of the job,” said Mr Sutton. “As in the past we shall probably promote a number of labourers to be carpenters. These men are not skilled tradesmen, and yet in many cases they are more satisfactory for this class of work.” Mr Sutton commended the suggestion, already made by the Court, of having two classes of carpenters on two appropriate rates of pay—nighly skilled tradesmen and men suitable for rougher type of work who could not be classed as skilled tradesmen. ♦ The hearing was adojurned.