School Caretakers' Grievances Supported

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32215, 6 February 1970, Page 1

School Caretakers' Grievances Supported

School caretakers are being exploited by the Education Department, according to the secretary of their Canterbury union (Mr L. R. W. Lee). His view that their longstanding grievances must be remedied appears to be shared by the Canterbury School Committees’ Association, by North Canterbury headmasters, and by the Canterbury 'Education Board. As a matter of principle Mr Lee is trying to get the school caretakers into the Public Service Association even though this will be at the expense of his own union’s membership and finances. REQUIREMENTS

Mr Lee says that school caretakers are required to have first-class character testimonials, yet they are paid less than council labourers—less even than the. women who clean the Government buildings in Christchurch. This, he says, is because the department recognises no difference between school) caretakers and others and pays them the minimum rates) of the award. At the same|

time, the department does not recognise the other provisions of the award as binding on it. Mr Lee says that the Education Department has stated in correspondence, above the signature of DirectorGeneral, that school caretakers are not entitled as of right to the conditions provided by the award. It has declined to provide wet weather clothing; and although there is provision for dirt money in the award, Mr Lee says that to his know- ) ledge it has never been paid Ito school caretakers.

Another grievance, according to Mr Lee, is that the caretakers are employed on a basis of 40 hours a week and overtime payments are not permitted without prior approval, and yet they can be called out day or night, any day of the week. Mr Lee says that the cleaners of Government buildings are recognised as public servants and awarded the ruling rates margin, and he asks why school caretakers should be treated differently. ANOTHER MEETING? “We have been trying to get justice for these men for ) the last eight years, and we !are running out of patience,” | Mr Lee said yesterday. ( “We have held one meeting

already—attended by caretakers from throughout Canterbury—and unless something is done in the very near future the men will be taking a day off to hold another one. This time the Minister (Mr Taiboys) will be given a personal invitation to attend,” he said. Two executive officers of the Canterbury' Education Board said yesterday that the board had been striving for years to get better wages and conditions for school caretakers and cleaners. The accountant (Mr J. F. Dysart) said that it was not easy to get the type of man who could be trusted while the rates of pay were lagging behind those of labourers. “In general terms, we support any move at all to get them better rates and conditions,” said Mr Dysart. Mr D. Wilson, the board’s assistant-secretary, is the South Island representative on a special committee set up by the Education Boards’ Association to consider the position of school caretakers and cleaners. He said that a questionnaire had been sent to all boards and he hoped to have a report ready for the association by the end of April. HARD TO GET ) The reason for this con- ) cern, he said, was the diffi-

culty school committees had in getting caretakers —and in keeping them. In 1962 the executive of the North Canterbury Headmasters’ Association made a detailed survey of the system of cleaning and caretaking in primary, intermediate and district high schools. The subsequent report said that the standard of cleanliness and environmental conditions in schools should approach as nearly as possible those found in the best homes and public institutions, because habits of health and cleanliness were formed in early years. However, these standards were not being achieved. TOO MUCH

The report said that this was because in most schools there was too much work for the timp allowed and some of it inevitably tended to be neglected. Also, the remuneration and conditions of employment needed to be improved to attract more men of the right calibre. It should be emphasised, said the report, that Ao appreciable amendment had been made since 1946 to the schedule governing the payment and conditions of employment of sdhool caretakers. Yesterday the secretary of the North Canterbury Headmasters’ Association (Mr P.

S. W. Mummery) said that he was not authorised to speak for the association on the matter, but his own view was that the caretakers were entitled to a considerable increase in payment and improvement of conditions. He said that he thought there had been very little improvement in either since 1962, which meant that they were much the same as they had been in 1946. CLAIMS SUPPORTED The secretary of the Canterbury School Committees’ Association (Mrs M. A. E. Rae) said that her association had been working for at least 10 years to help the caretakers obtain shorter hours, more pay and better conditions, and she agreed with Mr Lee that they were being unfairly treated. “They have to be responsible people because they have so much contact with children,” Mrs Rae said. “They are not just caretakers, but part of the school. ‘Their schedule of duties requires a quite astounding amount of work. Count up the number of windows they’ve got to clean. It just doesn’t seem feasible to get through the work that has to be done in the time that is allowed for it.” Mrs Rae said that school committees found it very difficult to get the sort of per-

son wanted for caretakers. They were able to get some retired men, but would like some younger men as well. But there was little prospect of this while unskilled men could earn more, for shorter hours and less responsibility, by working as council labourers.

CARETAKER’S REPORT One of the documents Mr Lee produced in support of his claims was a reply to a questionnaire received from a Canterbury school caretaker. Among other comments, the caretaker said: “Work is done on the sixth day, also the seventh day. In the summer the filtration plant in the baths has to be maintained; also, a school committee directive is that school doors, etc., have to be checked. This is done on Saturday and on Sunday. “Also, with the amount of dust, dirt and paper that blows over from the rubbish dump across the road, if my wife and I have to do the work required we would be at school all hours on a Friday night. So the teachers' room, office and headmaster’s ■office are done on Saturday morning: also all toilet blocks are given a good clean. “Last winter, the substandard conditions of the heating plant required at least two hours for cleanling out the two boilers as

they are too hot to do on a Friday evening. On Sunday I had to light the boilers at 5 p.m. and bank up for the night, otherwise the classrooms would not be warm until 10 a.m. on Monday. LONGER HOURS “Actual hours are well above 40, with rubbish blowing from dump into baths, extra time on boilers, inspecting classrooms, children knocking at the door at all hours and parents phoning. Also chasing children out of the school grounds. No overtime has ever been paid for any of this, though I have requested it time and again. “Work done after 5 p.m. is checking swimming baths: opening school for school committee, swimming club committee, P.T.A. committee, P.T.A. general meetings, jubilee committee and library committee. Some of these meetings have lasted till 11.30 p.m. Also checking classrooms, turning off pumps, answering numerous requests from parents for articles of clothing and from children for homework books, etc. In winter, banking the boilers about 10 a.m. for the night. “I receive nothing extra to my wages—financially or in time off in lieu of. They even refuse to pay dirt allowance (during winter while stoking ■ the boilers and fires.”