TYRE FACTORY DISPUTE

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27992, 12 June 1956, Page 14

TYRE FACTORY DISPUTE

180 Workers To Stop

At Firestone

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AGREEMENT

New Zealand’s largest tyre manufacturing plant, the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company’s Papanui factory, will be idle today while 180 workers discuss allegations of agreement breaches by the management. Workers claim that the management has dismissed and reprimanded men without informing their trade union . officials and giving them a chance of proper representation in discussing any charges of misconduct, and that the management has failed to implement a promise of an improveu bonus system for better quality in the factory. The secretary of the Canterbury Rubber Workers’ Union (Mr A. B Grant) said last evening that every effort would be made by the union to settle the dispute amicably while protecting the rights of Firestone employees “The company and the union have been concerned over the frequency of disputes in Firestone over the last three or four years,” said Mr Grant. “The company was also concerned that the quality of its production had decreased over the same period. “At the invitation, of the company, the union and the management met and drew up an agreement which, if administered fairly, was of benefit both to the company and to the workers. The union disagreed with some of the terms of the agreement, but on the promise that understanding and leniency would be applied, it was entered into. “It was also agreed that whenever a member of the union was to be reprimanded or warned tor a breach of the agreement, the job delegates at Firestone would be apprised and also the union,” Mr Grant said. No Advice of Dismissal “One man has been dismissed in the last month and two men have been reprimanded, but on no occasion h ave , the job delegates been advised of the action of the company and the union was not advised officially at the end of the month. Although none of the men affected approached the union, the point is that these men accepted the reprimands without the union having the right to represent them as agreed,” said Mr Grant, u Mr Grant said that an agreement had been made on productive processes and bonus rates which had been maintained over a period. These had been arbitrarily altered without the union delegates having been advised and given an opportunity to discuss -the alterations. “Some of these alternatives have made a considerable decrease in the take-home pay of some of the operatives,” he said. It had been pointed out to the management of the company and the general manager (Mr H. G. Miller) that the type of bonus being paid. °F j e lncent ive system which operated at the factory, compelled men to chase quantity at the expense of quahty, Mr Grant said. The union made several suggestions which it considered could operate to meet the management’s desires ™ mamtaining a first-quality article. {“ r Miller, without prompting, said tnat the management was prepared to pay a n incentive bonus for a quality product. This promise was made late in April but not only has no attempt been made to introduce the bonus system, but the offer has itself been denied, said Mr Grant.