Extra Allowance On Manapouri Job

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30289, 15 November 1963, Page 16

Extra Allowance On Manapouri Job

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 14. A proposed agreement for workers on the Manapouri power project now incorporated a £2 a week allowance for those not entitled to the “wet places” allowance, the Arbitration Court was told today. The Court reserved its decision on an application by Utah-Williamson-Burnett, employers on the Manapouri project, for exemption from 23 industrial awards.

The president of the Federation of Labour (Mr T. E. Skinner) said the employers and the unions he represented had reached agreement on the “wet places” clause. It now allowed £5 for each five working days or shifts. Except for tunnel work, this provision did not apply to those provided with complete protection from wet conditions, but these workers would now get £2 for each five working days, and 8s a day for each day worked in a week after five days. Thus, all workers would receive some compensation for the wet weather.

Agreement had been reached with all parties except the Labourers’ Federation and Southland Labourers’ Union, he said. Mr J. H. Dunn, for the Labourers’ Federation and Southland Labourers’ Union, said his clients opposed the application as a matter of principle. “There appears very little I can usefully say,” said Mr Dunn. “Although the agreement is not acceptable in its present form, it does seem the differences of opinion are not insurmountable.”

It was essentially an agreement between the joint venture and the Workers’ Union, he said. Since the reason for the application seemed to be to avoid a multiplicity of conditions as laid down in the various awards, and to allow the employers to deal with fewer union officials, Mr Dunn suggested the agreement apply to all unions affected except the labourers. That way there would be only two unions to deal with. The labourers had not been in a position to help negotiate the agreement. They had been presented with an agreement apparently worked out by the employers and the Workers’ Union. It would, perhaps, be unfair to oppose the agreement

and then file a claim under section 104 of the Industrial Concilation and Arbitration Act as a subsequent party—nobody would then know which union was to police the agreement. It would be belonging to different unions. There was also a peril that the Labourers’ Union would lose its membership to the Workers’ Union, said Mr Dunn. For the Engineers’ Union and the Otago Electrical Workers’ Union, Mr R. Darbyshire said he wanted to make it clear to the contractors what his union members were sacrificing in accepting the agreement. But the £2 a week allowance which had been added did go a long way towards alleviating any problems likely to arise in the future.