Laundry workers take industrial action

Press, 17 January 1986, Page 4

Laundry workers take industrial action

Commercial laundry workers from dry-cleaning firms and private hospitals are taking limited industrial action after a breakdown in their award talks.

A meeting of 85 workers yesterday morning agreed to take industrial action for an indefinite period, although the type of the action will vary from workplace to workplace.

The award talks were adjourned on Wednesday afternoon when no agreement could be reached on the union’s claims. These included a $2O industry allowance on top of a wage increase, clothing and footwear allowances, and a 10minute rest break every hour when the temperature was greater than 35deg. The dispute will affect 150 laundry workers in the Canterbury area, and more than 250 in Otago and Southland.

Mr Barry Brown an advocate for the union, said the decision to take industrial action was unanimous. Each workplace would decide the action it would take.

Workers at two dry-clean-ing firms did not return to work after the meeting yesterday morning. Other action could include a work to

rule overtime, restrictions or a refusal to work certain machines. Mr Brown said most of the workers took home between $146 and $l5O a week well below the pay received by laundry workers at public hospitals. The union had been looking for a pay increase of about $5O a week including the industry allowance.

The employers’ advocate, Mr Alan Davis, said employers recognised the need to increase wages to a more realistic level, but any increase must be capable of support by the industry.

Wage increases of up to 16.89 per cent had been offered, but the barrier to award settlement was the union’s claim for an industry allowance. The employers could not accept the claim, which had been presented to them only on the first day of talks, he sqid.

Because the conciliation council was still in force, industrial action was prohibited by law, said Mr Davis. The employers could only wait to see the effects of the industrial action, although he hoped that private hospitals would be exempt. Mr Brown said the dis-

pute was in some ways a battle of the sexes, because about 97 per cent of the workers were women.

“It is a carry-over from the old days. Because they are women they are expected to do women’s work and accept their lot.”

Mr Brown said he knew of a woman who had less than $35 remaining after she paid food and accommodation. Many of the workers, especially solo mothers, would be no worse off if they were on the dole, he said.

Mr Brown said the demand for a clothing and footwear allowance had been strong at yesterday’s meeting. Workers who were exposed to water, steam and chemicals should not be expected to use their own clothing without an allowance.

Industrial action could have been avoided if the employers had been more flexible, he said.

“If there were some indications that they were prepared to address the question at issue, and if the wage settlement was high enough, we would have been prepared to forego the industrial allowance.”