BANK OFFICERS’ CLAIMS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25736, 23 February 1949, Page 6

BANK OFFICERS’ CLAIMS

COUNTER SUBMISSIONS BY EMPLOYERS {P.A.) WELLINGTON. February 22. Unfair allegations and statements levelled at the banks as employers had not been substantiated, said Mr W. J. Mountjoy, advocate for the Associated Banks, replying in the Arbitration Court to-day to submissions and evidence given on behalf of the New Zealand Bank Officers’ Union in the bank officers’ dispute.

No proof had been given of any instance in which a bank officer had suffered unfair treatment because of being unfavourably reported on, Mr Mountjoy said. No proof had been given that a “life of drudgery was endured by bank officers. In his general submissions to the Court Mr Mount joy said the trading banks had. over the last 20 years, offered employment that had been sought by workers. The salaries paid by the trading banks had, over the last eight years, been increased by 31 per cent., whereas award wages for skilled tradesmen had, up to the end of 1947. been increased by only 30 per cent. The rates now offered by the banks compared favourably with those paid in other industries.

It .had been said that large numbers of officers were leaving the banks, but the staff figures proved that this was not so. The terms and conditions of employment in the banks were at least equal to, if not better than, those offered by the present Government in the Public Service, or by the legal or accountancy professions.

The banks strongly opposed the union’s proposal that executive officers should be brought under the provisions of th? proposed award, because they had the responsibility of controlling staffs, said Mr Mountjoy. He cited awards in other industries under which executive officers were exempted. He dealt in detail with the points of difference between the s anf i the counter-proposals of the banks on hours of work, salaries, overtime, and other provisions. Earlier written statements by officers of the Union Bank of Australia, Ltd . were presented to the Court. The advocate for the union, Mr C. A. R. Brunt said that the statement confirmed that it had been necessary to enter incorrect hours in the attendance book in order to obviate the payment of overtime or meal money. Mr Brunt asked the Court to treat the names of the men making the statements as .confidential. He then read to the Court acircular sent to members of the Bank Officers Guild in 1943, drawing attention to persistent complaints from Union Bank employees, and seeking confidential information. Further evidence for the union was given to-day by bank employees.