Employer Gives Evidence For Union In Wage Claim

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27679, 8 June 1955, Page 14

Employer Gives Evidence For Union In Wage Claim

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. June 7. Mr Allen Renwick, a building contractor employing six carpenters and an apprentice, and president of the Wanganui branch of the New Zealand Carpenters' Union, gave evidence for the union in an Arbitration Court hearing today. Mr Justice Tyndall, after asking the witness many questions about his position as union leader and employer, said he had continued to ask questions because it was unusual for an employer to appear for the workers. After his venture into business, the witness said, he had remained with the union and had been nominated and elected to the position of president of the branch. “I think we all have our own beliefs." said the witness to Mr P. J. Luxford, appearing for the employers, when asked why he belonged to the union. “You don’t belong to the employers’ union, in which case these aren’t very high principles,” said Mr Justice Tyndall. The witness said he had had a bad deal when starting his own business, and local opposition had made it an uphill struggle. As a result he had nothing to do with the local builders. The witness said he was advised that if he went out of Wanganui he would get building supplies for his contracts. He transferred his business for a time to Raetihi, to which supplies came readily from Wanganui. When Mr Justice Tyndall asked him whether a ring was operating between the employers and suppliers, the witness said he did not know, but supplies for his contracts in Wanganui were now coming from the King Country, and he was receiving very little from Wanganui. Pay Compared The witness handed 10 pay slips to the Court Each represented a different firm in Wanganui, and showed that the award rate of 5s an hour, plus 13 per cent, generally applied. His firm naid 5s 6d an hour, plus 13 per cent, he said. With the expansion of his business he felt competent to pay above the award fate, for he was concerned with getting the best conditions for his workers. But if a man was not pulling his weight he would readily dismiss him. The Carpenters’ Union representa- . tive, Mr F. L. Langley, said that Government carpenters were being paid

not only more than the award rate but - more than many privately-employed d carpenters were paid. He argued that e this was a reason for increasing the d award rate. r Mr Justice Tyndall said that the t latest increases granted to State eml. ployees had been intended to cover - what was actually paid to workers n outside State employ. What the work- - ers were seeking to do was called s leapfrogging—one set of workers wantr ing an increase in pay because another lot of workers had passed them, and e then the first set desiring a restoration i of their previous position. i The difference between the pay f actually received by various workers under the award m'-*ht be a measure ii of ability, he rfidrd Investigation by . • the Labour Department had shown that privately-employed workers ree • ceived more than the award rate. The workers claim an increase in ;’ the hourly rate from 5s 3d to 7s 6.36 d, f assuming 40 hours’ work in the week, s and an increase in the weekly rate from £ll 6s to £l5 Is 2d. i Mr Langley submitted that the rates J for carpenters had not increased. i nearly as rapidly as had rates of many i other workers. Carpenters employed by the State were receiving 6s 3Jd an t hour. Official statistics showed that 1 builders’ surplus, being the value of ;. work done less costs of production, had s risen much more sharply than the 2 wages bill. Between 1947-48 and 195152 wages and salaries increased by 87 i per cent., and builders’ surplus by - 199 per cent. I Employers’ Opposition | The wage claims put forward by the , carpenters were completely unaccept- ’ able to the employers, said Mr Luxford. ' The Court last October made the Auckland (56-mile radius) carpenters’ award, and in a detailed memorandum j explained its reasons for advancing the t wage rate in that award from 5s to t 5s Id, Mr Luxiord said. 3 The employers suggested to the i Court that the new award under dis- , pute incorporate the same hourly and s weekly wage rate as prescribed in the 7 Auckland award. “Any variation of this earlier decis- - ion would have a profound and uns settling effect within the industry,” he 1 said. “Award rates are minimum rates, and should' not be compared with - agreements or orders where the actual - rates paid are prescribed.” i The hearing will continue tomorrow.