Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NO REDUCTIONS

Shop Assistants’ Pay AWARD RENEWED Arbitration Decision , One of the provisions of an Arbitration Court judgment on an application for a new Dominion shop assistants’ award is that the clauses setting out scales of wages shall not operate so as to reduce the wages now being paid to any employees at present employed. In a memorandum to the award Mr. Justice Frazer says that several matters were referred to the court, but with minor exceptions the award was based' on the provisions of the expired, award. A majority, of the court decided that it could not grant increases in wages as claimed by the union. Gisborne Excluded. Owing to a separate union, which was not a party to this dispute, having been registered for the Gisborne judicial district, no Gisborne employers have been added as parties, and on this point the memorandum says:—“A majority of the court is of the opinion that the scope of the award cannot include an area covered by a union’s registration, unless that union is made a party to the award. The registration of the 6 Gisborne union has had the effect of excluding the Gisborne judicial district from the area in which the Auckland union functions. There is nothing- to prevent the Auckland union from having members in the Gisborne judicial district, but it canot apply for an award covering. that district,. unless the local union is joined as a party.” Mr. Monteith Dissents. '■ Mr. A. L. Monteith, the employees’ representative, records a dissenting opinion, stating that he is not in agreement with the wages awarded to juniors, which, in some cases, show an increase over 1912 of only 25 to 33 per cent. “In regard to striking out the Gisborne district,” Mr. Monteith says, “the position is that the employers asked to be struck out because a local union was now registered. The Auckland union’s registration covers the whole industrial district. The new local union is objecting to the employers’ application also. The employers did not show any cause for exclusion; only stated a new union had been registered. r fhe registration of a union gives that union the right to apply for an award, but does not give the right of exclusion to employers.. It may happen at any time that a new. union of fifteen members may be registered and this may be only a very small minority of the unionists in a locality and this means that the employers in that locality can secure exclusion from a dispute.” ,

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19301210.2.99

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 65, 10 December 1930, Page 13

Word Count
420

NO REDUCTIONS Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 65, 10 December 1930, Page 13

NO REDUCTIONS Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 65, 10 December 1930, Page 13

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert