Dispute over pickers’ wages

Press, 15 December 1982, Page 6

Dispute over pickers’ wages

Industrial reporter The long-standing dispute over berry fruit pickers' wages is threatening to erupt again this season, in spite of a final and binding decision by a Christchurch industrial conciliator, Mr B. P. Gray. Mr Gray ruled in October in favour of the Labourers’ Union interpretation of the pickers’ award, which would mean that any picker would be entitled to receive minimum hourly rates of pay, ranging from $1.06 an hour for a 12-year-old to $3.86 an hour for an adult.

The growers had argued that it was customary for them to pay pickers for whatever they picked in whatever time they took. After Mr Gray’s decision was given? the growers said that they would appeal to the Arbitration Court, and the

case was expected to be heard early next year. However, they have now decided not to appeal and have instead brought in a system of contracts of employment under which they want all pickers to co-operate. The contracts, which the union recommends that pickers refuse to sign, say that the payment will be according to piece rates and that an “ordinary, capable” worker is able to earn the award rate.

The piece rates, or payments for amount picked, are set at the same figure as last season —46 c a kilogram for raspberries and 30c a kilogram for strawberries. ■ The; contracts give the picker the choice of either lifting his rate of picking or leaving if he or she at first does not meet the minimum

award rate by the piecework system. The secretary of the Canterbury Growers’ Society, Mr G. D. Bourke, said that the growers regarded Mr Gray's decision as being a "oncer” with no application to pickers in other circumstances.

Mr Bourke said that the majority of pickers should be able to pick at piece rates and still earn the minimum award rate.

The secretary of the Canterbury branch of the Labourers' Union, Mr R. A. Lowe, said that the union saw Mr Gray’s decision as final and binding and applicable to all workers employed under the award. Mr Lowe said that if it was a “oncer” as Mr Bourke said, it would not have caused the growers so much

concern at the time nor led Mr Gray to refer to it as a “test case."

He said that growers would be in breach of the Agricultural Workers' Act as well as the award if they refused to pay minimum award wages. A conviction under the act could result in a fine of up to $5OO against an employer. Mr Lowe said that pickers should not sign the documents. but if they did the union would take the view that they were signed under duress. If pickers found that they were paid less than the award wage they should get in touch with the union.

“We are not going to stand by and see anybody, whether they be. children-or adults, screwed into the ground by unscrupulous employers; and if the employers are having

problems with award rates. I would remind them that they are the lowest rates in the country and I would like to see them living on those wages." said Mr Lowe. Mr Gray upheld the union's interpretation of the award in his decision, although he said he appreciated comments made by the employers that it was custom and practice in the industry to take on anybody, male and female, and pay them for whatever they picked, in whatever time they wanted to take. "It may well be that we have come to the end of an era which would destroy many' young people s dreams of having a job out in the open during the picking season to earn pocket money for Christmas or holidays." Mr Grav said.