Tribunal warns against strife over ruling for women

Press, 20 September 1980, Page 1

Tribunal warns against strife over ruling for women

PA Wellington The Equal Opportunities Tribunal hopes that no threats of industrial unrest or withdrawal of labour arise from its decision yesterday in favour of two women who wanted to be

The tribunal awarded damages against the Ocean Beach Freezing Company to Mrs Beryl Ann Ross and Mrs Jessie Ruki in a decision which was made public on Womnen’s Suffrage Day. However, a union official said yesterday that men at Southland works did not want women on killing chains. The case was between the Human Rights Commission (plaintiff) and Ocean Beach Freezing Company, Ltd, of Southland (defendant).

In its decision the tribunal said it did not want to provoke any confrontation between the Ocean Beach sub-branch of the Meat Workers’ Union (which had opposed moves to allow women to work as slaughtermen) and the freezing company. “We hope that both : parties, by the exercise of good sense and recognising that the law now requires equal opportunity for women,, will be able to accept the situation.’’ ... The tribunal' awarded $2252 each to the women. They will get: for loss _of income, $lBOO each; for their expenses, $202; for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to the feelings, $250. The tribunal ordered the company not again to refuse Mrs Ross arid Mrs Ruki — or other women — the opportunity to train and be employed at its Bluff works as “slaughtermen.” It found the company had breached the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, in re-

fusing to give the two women this opportunity earlier. It said that until 1953 mutton killing in Southland freezing works had been -done by the “solo” method. One man only was responsible for the entire process of killing and dressing sheep. “The work was very heavy and no women were employed.” From the mid-19605, however, changes in the industry removed some of the heavy work and increased the numbers employed. Now there were 53 to 56 people to process the same number of carcases, 3200 a day, that 34 men were expected to process when the chain system was introduced. For many years work on the chain remained the province of meri, the tribunal Said. But difficulties in attracting a stable ■ workforce to Ocean Beach, and changing economic circumstances in the 19705, led the management to; approach the union for agreementoh employing women'.; . . • Union members showed some reluctance. Eventually an agreement was reached that women would be permitted to work in several areas, but not on the slaughterboard. At a shed meeting in 1978, union members voted 73 per cent to suppbrt the 1973 agreement with the defendant company, which, in effect, excluded women from becoming slaughtermen. The same meeting reaffirmed that women be

allowed to apply for and be given support in other parts of the works.

A union witness had told the tribunal that had the company tried to put women on the learners’ chain there would have been a withdrawal of labour. Facilities had had nothing to do with the union sub-branch’s decision.

The company had argued that the refusal to allow the women to become slaughtermen was not unlawful because separate facilities were not available for them and that it was not' reasonably practicable to provide them. The tribunal said it accepted that the company “faced a very real problem because of the attitude expressed by the sub-branch of the union.” But, it said, there was ' nd evidence that the company took, any step to try to resolve the problem, in spite of knowing that the women had been pressing for some /years to be employed as slaughtermen. Through :its . witnesses, the defendant company had given assurances that it was proceeding as fast as possible to provide equal opportunity for all women who wished to work as slaughtermen. The company’s representatives were not prepared, however, to give a firm undertaking that these facilities would be completed by June 1, 1982, the date referred to in the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977. A witness had contended that this time was unrealistically short. The commission felt there should be no extension of time, but as it had not heard evidence on this point the tribunal was not prepared to make any finding. • The tribunal noted that the company clearly regarded women in general as good employees. In the case of Mrs Ross and Mrs Ruki, the commission had said, they had seniority of service over men. There was no evidence they were not suitable for the learners chain —“on the contrary, there was evidence in their favour.”

The secretary of the. Ocean Beach sub-branch of the Meat Workers’ Union (Mr A. Taurima) believes it will be a long time before any women work on killing chains at the works, in spite of the decision.. -z -

Most butchers would return to Ocean Beach for the coming season, Mr Taurima said, and even if they did not he doubted that the women would be able to -do the job.

Certainly, if women were able to work as tally slaughtermen, the decision could be described as a cornerstone, but he doubted that they would 'be'“able to make it.” Mr Taurima said that there were 56 or 58 people on a chain, and provided there was a willingness by all the others to help, any person on the chain might be able to handle the job. But men in all works in Southland did not want women on the chains, he said.

The only New'Zealand works with women on the chain was at Feilding, and that was only because they had 20 to 30 relatives who worked with them ancj helped out.

“We believe it is undignified for women to work On the chain so in iny view I don’t feel they will be able to make it,” Mr Taurima said. Mr Taurima said he had

heard that a representative of the Federation of Labour might come to Southland “to show us the error of' our ways.” Other women working at Ocean Beach who did not want to become slaughtermen, believing it to be a man’s job, had told him they hoped the women would not win the case.

“It’s in blood and guts, and that’s an. environment that certainly’ isn’t conducive to females,” Mr Taurima said. “It’s male dominated.” However, having won the right, one of the women, Mrs Ross, said yesterday that, she intended to prove her worth by working as a butcher at Ocean Beach during the coming season. Mrs Ross said shethought the decision was marvellous.

She was quite satisfied with the amounts awarded and had not expected much more, “I am quite happy,” she said.

It was not the money that was important. “I knew I was right and I wanted to make that point,” Mrs Ross said.

Another woman, Mrs Jessie Ruki, was not available for her reaction.

Spokesmen for the freezing company would not comment until they had studied the full decision.

A third woman, Mrs P. Rattray, whose case was also taken up 'by the Human Rights Commis-

sion, was not granted damages. She had not been present when the complaints were heard before the tribunal at Invercargill in July, and is believed to be in Australia.

In Parliament yesterday the Under-Secretary for Labour (Mr Malcolm) said he would move that the House note the decision with approval.

Mr- Malcolm also called on the Fire Service Council to take steps to avoid the embarrassment of a similar decision on the rights o’f women to serve their •_ communities by fighting fires.

The National Council of Women yesterday hailed the decision.

“While in no way wishing to put pressure on women to enter into paid employment, and upholding the real value of the contribution to the community of women as homemakers, we consider that society’s attitude to the paid occupations which some women may wish to pursue should be that of tolerance and encouragement,” said the council’s secretary, Mrs Laurie Salas. The Minister of Justice '(Mr McLay), who is also the Government’s spokesman on women’s affairs, said it was a happy coincidence that the decision, had come on the eighty-seventh anniversary of women’s suffrage. The decision would have a farreaching impact.