Union Seeks Proposition Of Employers’ Piecework Plan

Press, Volume C, Issue 29635, 4 October 1961, Page 15

Union Seeks Proposition Of Employers’ Piecework Plan

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, October 3. An application to prohibit employer-imposed piecework contracts and incentive bonus schemes, was made on behalf of workers in the brick, tile and pottery industry to the Arbitration Court today.! The Court reserved its decision. The workers were not opposed to schemes where mutual agreement had been reached between the employer concerned and the unions, the Court was told. The union—the Wellington. Nelson, Westland and Marlborough Local Bodies, Other Labourers and Related Trades—applied for a new sub-clause in the brick, tile and pottery workers’ award prohibiting the arbitrarilyimposed schemes, except where the mutual agreement had been made. It said the sub-clause should not affect any such arrangements or schemes which were in operation at the date of coming into force of the award. Mr W. J. Anton, for the union, said the Court would be well aware of the inherent dangers of arbitrarilyimposed piecework, contract and incentive bonus schemes, particularly in respect of life, limb and health. The arbitrary imposition of bonus schemes had caused serious unrest and disruption in the industry. It was significant that such unrest had occurred when the union had not been consulted by management before the implementation of the schemes. But when the union had been consulted, such results had been negligible. '

Mr Anton asked the Court to disallow a counter claim by the employers for the addition to the award of the words: "All workers shall be engaged for the undertaking and shall work in any part as directed.”

He said the words were redundant. The employer had the unquestioned right to utilise a worker’s services in any part of the undertaking. always provided not less than the appropriate minimum wage rate was paid. Mr G. A. Turner, in support of the employers’ counter-claim, said the employers considered that, as they had the right to direct workers to different jobs, and as this right had been queried by workers on occasions, the words should be included to ensure all parties to the award were fully aware of the position. Some workers had quite erroneously considered that having completed a job in less than the previous normal time—because of new machinery, techniques or methods —they should still receive their 40 hours pay, plus extra for the work done on other jobs but still within the 40-hour week. Mr Turner said the employers strongly opposed the inclusion of the proposed subclause on piecework and incentive bonus schemes.

The proposed sub-clause had many obnoxious features It could prohibit piecework, labour-only contract work, and incentive bonus schemes. It gave the union complete control over the employer as to whether he would be

permitted to operate any of the schemes. It placed the union in a most unfair negotiating position. The employer had no right of appeal against any unreasonable demands by the union. Mr Turner said: “Should not the union’s function be similar to that of the court's —to apply itself to the minimum rates and leave aboveaward payments to employer and employee as a domestic matter?”