FREEZING DISPUTE DECISION

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29237, 22 June 1960, Page 10

FREEZING DISPUTE DECISION

Incorporation Date Set

As March 3

March 3, 1960, has been determined as the operative date from which the incorporation of the 24 per cent, general wage order in freezing workers’ wage and piecework rates will take effect.

The Conciliation Commissioner in Christchurch (Mr S. W. Armstrong), who announced this date yesterday, was asked to make a decision, binding on all parties, on a date between February 8 and May 1.

Mr Armstrong said in a written statement that he had listened carefully to the parties and had read and given consideration to all submissions. “This national dispute was looming up for many weeks and should not have been allowed to develop. The parties, in the interests of better industrial relations, would be well advised to give consideration to improving their disputes procedure both from a local and national point of view,” he said.

Reviewing, the background of the dispute, Mr Armstrong said that at a compulsory conference of the parties on January 27, no agreement could be reached on a method whertoy the effect of the general order\ of the Court of Arbitration would be incorporated into freezing workers’ rates of wages, including rates for piecework. The parties did, however, agree to make a joint application to the Court for a review of the then current award in the hope that the Court would settle the problem of incorporation for them. Joint Application

The hearing of the joint application began on February 8. It was adjourned sine die after an indication by Federated Farmers that they intended to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration. The hearing was resumed later, and on April 29, the Court, in its decision, only

amended the award so that it would expire on April 30, 1960.

In a memorandum, the Court clearly indicated that the parties should get together again in conciliation and settle the problem of incorporation for themselves. The Court also indicated that some method of incorporation would havfe to be determined and

went on to refer to an understanding reached between the parties as to the date of operation of incorporated wage rates with which the Court could not be associated.

The parties later did reach, agreement on incorporated wage rates, and in the new award to be issued by the Court, May 1 would be the operative date for wages. It was not legally possible for an earlier date to be written into the award.

Workers’ representatives, the statement said, claimed that at the conclusion of the compulsory conference on January 27, 1960, the employers’ representatives entered into an agreement or gave an undertaking that when the award was amended to incorporate the effect of the general order into wage rates, such incorporated wage rates would date back to the first day of the -hearing in the Court of Arbitration, which was February 8, 1960. Employers* View

The employers said that the undertaking they gave was in the following terms: “If the Court sees fit in its review to make any change in the award and the union advocate applies to the Court for any. change io operate from the date the Court proceedings commence, the employers would not object.” The employers said that because the Court in its review did not settle wage incorporation they were not obliged to recognise February 8, 1960, as the operative date for the agreed incorporated wage rates. The workers on the other hand asked employers to honour the Spirit or intention of the undertaking. This dispute in deadlock was outside the jurisdiction of any industrial Court or authority and the parties invited him to fix a compromise date between February 8 and May 1, Mr Armstrong said. “The freezing workers, through their representatives, may have helped themselves to a generous interpretation of the agreement or undertaking but they worked through the peak of the season fully expecting retrospective adjustment of wages to February 8, 1960,” said the decision.

"Freezing company employers were well aware of the workers’ expectations based on their understanding of the employers’ undertaking, but I am not satisfied that employers exerted themselves much until April or later to correct what they considered a misinterpretation of their undertaking,” Mr Armstrong said. ‘‘lf the employers’ version of their undertaking is correct they must have been quietly confident that it meant little or nothing because the Court was not likely to, or could not have, amended the rates in a current award in retrospective manner to the first day of the hearing. I cannot believe that Mr F, P. Walsh, a highly skilled and experienced workers’ advocate, would accept an undertaking that meant little or nothing,” Mr Armstrong added.