Freezing Workers To Meet On Award

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31540, 30 November 1967, Page 12

Freezing Workers To Meet On Award

The Arbitration Court decision to increase hourly rates for freezing workers by 2c would be discussed by freezing workers’ meetings throughout New Zealand, said the general secretary of the New Zealand Freezing Workers’ Association (Mr F. E. McNulty) yesterday.

The first of these meetings will be the executive meeting of the Canterbury - Nelson - Marlborough Freezing Workers’ Union in Christchurch next week.

Mr McNulty said he would also call a meeting of all national assesors to considers the Court’s decision in Wellington on Monday.

Mr McNulty described the 2c increase as the lowest increase the Court had given in the last 12 months.

The Waterfront Industry Commission had recently awarded the waterfront workers 5c an hour increase. The Court, with its 2c increase decision was asking freezing workers to bear an unnecessary share of the present economic situation.

“This is totally unfair and will be unrealistic,” said Mr McNulty. “The Court's decision will make the workers more and more dissatisfied with the Arbitration Court.”

Mr McNulty said the executive of his association was seriously considering seeking a tribunal for freezing workers, instead of going to the Arbitration Court. Full-time Industry

“We feel that the Court has never taken into consideration that freezing workers are a unique section of the community,” said Mr McNulty. “They service a full-time industry in five or six months of the year. These workers, by accepting employment -in such an industry, are compelled to seek other employment for at least six months of the year. Today, this other employment, is no longer offering.” The secretary of the Canterbury Nelson - Marlborough Freezing Workers’ Union (Mr S. Arnst) yesterday said that the Court had once again dealt a blow at the freezing worker.

“All workers in the industry had lost their relative position in the wage structure compared to workers in other industries who have been receiving between 81.50 to $1.70 a week increases. “We have said this before and the picture is more evident now, that for our industry a separate commission or tribunal is required to rule on wages and conditions for freezing workers,” said Mr Arnst. Court Award The Court of Arbitration must never forget that the ultimate arbiter of incomes generally in the community is the state of the country’s economic health, says Judge A. P. Blair, in a memorandum attached to the award. Increases in wages or costs which led to the deterioration and weakening of key industries and resulted in lost ■ work, unemployment and 'forced reductions of wages ; were obviously undesirable, i he says. In fairness to the workers in the case before the Court ! some increase should be made, but not one which would encourage a further cycle of cost increases, he says. The award relates to meat processors, packers and pre-

servers at freezing works in all areas except Westland. Dealing with submissions made to the Court, Judge Blair says that the New Zealand Freezing Companies Industrial Union of Employers pressed for no increases, relying on existing economic factors and the state of the farming industry which is particularly interdependent with the freezing industry. It is undeniable that the farmer is experiencing falling prices for wool and for some of his other products and that his income has generally dropped by a significant percentage, and it has to be accepted that the farming and freezing industries are interdependent, says Judge Blair. Because of that the cost structure of the freezing industry is of vital importance to the farmer.

The freezing companies said that they would be compelled to reflect any wage increases awarded by the Court in charge to farmers. Companies’ Dilemma

The companies face a considerable dilemma, Judge Blair says. “On the one hand, their ability to manage their business profitably depends on the farmer being able to maintain and increase production; on the other hand, if they increase the farmers’ costs there will be a tendency for production to decrease and production to fall off.” At the same time, the freezing works must pay their workers a fair and equitable rate, Judge Blair says.

The union’s view was that it was not fair to ask a section of the workers to accept the responsibility for remedying a situation which was really that of government.

“This Court accepts that in fixing wage rates in award disputes the profitability or otherwise of the industry in question is only of indirect relevance. However, the Court must never forget that the ultimate arbiter of income generally is the state of the country’s economic health,” says Judge Blair. As an addendum, Judge Blair says that the effects of devaluation are impossible to assess at present. The term of the award therefore would be 12 months. In a dissenting opinion, Mr A. B. Grant, a member of the Court, says that in his opinion the increase granted in the award should have been not less than 3.75 c an hour. That amount would have maintained the workers in equity with other workers in general, he holds.