FREEZING WORKERS' DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 300, 13 September 1921, Page 8

FREEZING WORKERS' DISPUTE

j CONCILIATION COUNCIL BEARING EMPLOYERS STATE WAGES AT RED ROCK I “ PRODUCER MUSI RE CONSIDERED ” ) Hearing O' ihc freezing workers’ dis., pufe was nrlvancod o further stage yesterday, when represeni.atives: of fh<? freezing companies of Nov, Zealand ami of the Now Zetil.'inc Freezing Works end Related Trades Industrial Association of Workers Tesiimed their meeting in Con- ! ciliation I'Anneil io discuss the term-, to i be embodied ir: new awards. The lost | award was made in 1919. The dispute ! on ibis occasion vis created by the employers. whoso claims and the counterclaims of the workers have sltvndy been published. The assessor'; for the employers were Messrs J. i . Gooper, H. G. ’Warren, S. Dickson, and J. Milne, with Mr. A. S. Cookson-a, agent. The assessors for the workers wore. Messrs, F. J. Niali, },. Price, and F. C. Ellis, wifi: Mr. AV. E. Sill ns agent. The Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. W. Newton) presided. During consideration of dates for other hearings of the dispute in the various industrial centres, Mr. Sill complained that the union hist not received enough notico of the date of the Wellington hearing. The workers’ representatives agreed that the Wellington hearing could not produce a settlement. Mr. ’Sill added that there was a certain factor affecting •the employers’ ebse which had to he taken into consideration. Mr. Cooper: What is that factor? Mr. Sill answered that bo knew the employers had intimated that it would he better for the Arbitration Court to decide The case than for the Council to I arrive at. a settlement. Owing io existmg contiiiiaons, ho presumed, the emi plovers were hot prepared to accept the I responsibility of an agreement. The workers were in no «uc)i position. They ,were anxious for a settlement, and theretoroThcy should have been given time to discuss, the matter thoroughly. The Commissioner suggested flint the Blenheim hearing should be fixed for “epfemher 22. The hearing could then bo niljoiirned sine die. This was agreed to, abd other dates Tor ’imarings were fixed as follow: —Taranaki, September 15; .Auckland, Octrfber <1 (by arrangement with Mr. T. Ilario Giles. Auckland Commissioner): Gisborne. October 12 (by 'similar arrangement); Dunedin, September 20; 1 Cliristchurch, September 25. Not ah Ordinary Dispute.

Opening the case formally for the employers, Air. Cookson said that it differed from ordinary disputes in that portions of the claims and counter-claims hail been already 'discussed and made clear. He asked whether certain clauses, modified in conference (relating to hours of work and other matters) would be.acoepteU as modified by the other side. Tn other details, the award was based largely or. that of 1919.

‘Mr. Sill answered that the question of wages was paramount. The fixing of the other clauses depended on tlm result of fbe wages dispute. Evon if the wages clauses remained undecided, the other clauses could ba discussed. Mr. Sill said that there was not milch i®f~aronce Ibotween the present, nnpro ■ami the counter-proposals. However, the employers" claims provided for a. 25 per cent, reduction for hourly workers and a 20 per cant, reduction for piece workers on ah earnings, including overtime. Mr. Cooper intimated that the employers were forced to rodneo Sv.ages on account of the conditions of the industry having become stendih worse, Mr.~ Cookson. siiid that consideration should be given to the ’•fixing of a basic

wage. Regarding ih - rate for lal'enrers (2s. Itf. an hour). Mr. Cooper w.id ho knew of eases wl’.ore men were working for half Giai wage. '’And they’ll come lower.” \e said. ’■’Phe Court fixed the wagb at Is. 19M.. remarked Mr. Niall. "Further Reduction.”

The Council discussed seriatim the various wages clauses. For general hands, as a minimum wage, the employers offered Is. I'd. an hour, as against 2s. 2hl. I or this reduction the workers’ represoniativos asked for a reason. It was stated that even at the higher rate, one hard worker, a specific ease, only c'arnod AS 9s. odd a week.

Mr. Cooper: W hat man. for instance? Mr. Niall: A slaughterman's assistant, working every day. Mr. Cooper: There is something Wrong there!

Air. I'lll is prod need a tiino-shoet showing the low rates of pay referred to. Mr. Cooper said that some slaughtermen had. Itohavert “qu’eerly" of late. Mon had deliberately stayed, away from work. ‘ , , , Mr. Niall: They may have been knocked out. Mt. Cooper: Even if you do agree to Our proixvsals, we’ll come at you for a further reduction later on. Mr. Ellis; Von can't bo serious?

Mr. Cooper: I’m perfectly sbrious. Mr. Niall: With lamb at 13Jd. a pound? Mi\ F'riee risked whether the employers thought it fair to ask the working men to work for the industry for six months in the year —"working their soul-eases out for Is. 9d. an hour’’—and then to cut them adrift? ’Mr. Cooper: Th«y don't work their soul-cases out in freezing) works. Further discussion" followed on tins question. The, unions' view was that mon worked unlil they were exhausted. At t.hn end of the season they required some weeks’ rest, "Take It er Leave It.”

Earlv in the aitov.nooii Mr. Cookson made Lite following statemoiX : ''During tho luncheon adjournment the employers’ assOssotw have had an opportunity Oi considering this morning’s yttscussion «wt the question of wages, and they teal il is futile to spend any further time over it. Thev are not prepitto'd to exceed tho rates of pay set out. in the employers' ptxiposais, and the attitude ot the unions’ assessors, did not iiidicnto (tie possibility of aeeept ineo of a settleinvni which would int'olvo a reddetion in wages. The position is a peculiar one. tn that wo hiivil td consider not. only tthnl the freezing companies call pay, but also what ctieet any Vate agreed npoii tiill have on the ptoditcer. 't he cost, of lieezing must bo aticlt hi will eim’blo the producer to have eiillieienl. nmrgin to live upon, and lie, Us well ns the worker, must reeeivo consideration. Wo therefore suggest Unit tlie.wlmlp question, ot tinges Miotild bo telerrtxl to tho Arbitration Court for Rcttlmuent. nnd that (ho Count'll Hhonhl oiidenvottr Io come Io tin agreement upon tho winking eonditiohe,” .After a lengthy discussion productive of Ho rostill, Iho ('oniniissioni'f nnitl Hutt Iho posit idit seemed 1“ be Hint. I lie employers hud said “take it or leave it.” fir. Cooper: Wlmll llio claims were, Untiled qimdiihmH were vastly better tlinn limy aye I" day. Tim claims glmttld Ifnve been rceii llt’d. Mr. Ni-ill: H's twl’li.V .'oh didn't do il. Mil Kilis: Tho kernel of tho nliohi dispnie is wages. Tlmro is no use in diucusfling tile shell withold tho kernel. I line owl un ini Um Ritmo vein eonlinncd Iliilil lido in the id'terlHHin. 'l'ho parlies agreed mt Um holiday ehtiisn ns in Hie existing ngreelnmd, nnd on purl inn of Gm piece work eliiuw. The new portion is ns’ follows: ■ “ll:t(es of pi,,. , . falling agii'oitmld nhall ho roforrt’d'li'j the Uinpidrs Uolnniitt.ee.'' Tim old eontrntl. work, elntist. was agreed to. 'l'ho healing will bo etmlinimd nt 10 ti.ni. 10-dtty.