Caretakers’ case unresolved

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32639, 22 June 1971, Page 23

Caretakers’ case unresolved

(By our education reporter)

No end is yet in sight to the moves begun in Christchurch more than a year ago for higher rates of pay, and better conditions, for school caretakers throughout New Zealand.

These workers number many thousands, but they have no national system of wages or conditions. Although they are paid out of the public purse,, they do not have any recourse to the Public Service Association, as do caretakers and custodians employed directly by the Government.

Because> of a complicated system of local ruling-rate surveys, school caretakers are among the last workers in the country to benefit from national ruling-rate sur-

veys. Under the present system, for example, a caretaker in Kaitaia could be paid a wage vastly different from that paid a caretaker in Gore. The Canterbury School Committees' Association decided in February, 1970, to take up the case for better pay and conditions for school caretakers. A national survey of caretakers’ wages followed this move. Education boards and the Secondary School Boards’ Association conferred with the Government, and an extensive report was prepared by the Education Boards’ Association, recommending that all school caretakers be put on the same basis as all other caretakers and custodians employed in the Public Service. This report is still in the Government’s hands—but last week’s meeting of the Can-

; terbury Education Board • made it clear that dissatis--1 faction is growing at Govemi ment delays in implementing . the report’s major recom- [ mendation—a national system .of caretakers’ wages, and i treatment of all school care- • takers as Public Service emI ployees. Several members indicated ■ that the Canterbury Ediicai tion Board seemed to stand I alone among other boards in ' advocating better pay and i conditions for school carei takers. The caretakers should ' be on the same wage awards i as Government cleaners and custodians, said Mr D. L. ■ Waghom. “I am perturbed 1 that the Education Boards’ ■ Association should allow any i differentiation between Government and school care- ’ takers,” he said. 1 ■ Mr R. K. Milne said: “We ‘ should press—no, we should i n s t r u c t—the Education Boards* Association to take this matter much further with the Government.”