NO AGREEMENT

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 70, 15 December 1933, Page 9

NO AGREEMENT

New Award for Theatrical Hands STATEMENT DENIED An allegation that the ’ employers’ proposals had emanated from the Wellington Employers’ Association was the occasion for the display of some feeling In a dispute In Conciliation Council proceedings yesterday between the New Zealand Theatrical Proprietors’ and Managers’ Industrial Union of Employers, the applicants for a new award, and the New Zealand Federated Theatrical and Places of Amusement Employees’ Industrial Association of Workers. The statement, which was made by. Mr. A. W. Croskery, the employees’ advocate, was strongly denied by Mr. W.-J. Mount joy, the employers’ agent ' '. ' ' . • ’ • : ‘'

The dispute, which had been adjourned on November 8, when it was agreed that the respondents should have the opportunity of consulting their respective branches, centred upon proposals of the employers to reduce the existing rates of pay by 10 per cent., and alterations in the conditions of employment, including their refusal to compute travelling time in a worker’s hours. No agreement was arrived at. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. P, Hally, presided. The applicants were represented by Messrs. Mountjoy (agent), H. Stringer (Wellington), R. Shepard (Wellington), and W. Burton (Wellington), ■and the respondents by Messrs. Croskery (advocate), R. Pearson (Auckland), J. B. Holmes (Wellington), B. Ashby (Dunedin), and L. Flowers (Christchurch). Mr. Croskery said that the old award was not satisfactory to the employees. Since the last meeting the unions had given careful consideration to the employers’ offer. They did not agree with the suggestion concerning overtime rates, nor did they agree with the striking out of the hours in the old award occupied in travelling. With reference to wages they were not prepared to agree to any reduction in the rates of pay under the old award. He did not anticipate any difficulty in arriving at a settlement as long as they could agree on the points he had referred to.

Mr. Mountjoy said that he was disappointed with Mr. Croskery’s dictatorial attitude, which he considered was uncalled for. They had assembled to discuss a Settlement, and they had been told that they had to do certain things, and if they did not comply they, would have to fight. Mr. CroSkery: You have -brought it on yourselves and you mustn’t cry down. ' . Mr, Mountjoy: Wo are not crying, and if any side cries it may be your side. , Mr. Pearson: We have been whacked good and truly In the past, and have stood up to It, anti we can continue to stand up to it. ' The commissioner considered tliat there could be mediation if a reasonable offer was made by either side. Mr. Mountjoy. said that there was no suggestion of his refusing to meet Mr. Croskery. - They had assembled for a settlement, and they were not going to be bludgeoned ihto anything. Source ; of Proposals. Mr. Croskery: We know the office from which all these proposals emanate, the office on the Terrace. We are not letting the Employers’ Association draw up what would be a disgrace to our manhood. We know the pressure that is put on employers to agree to this kind of thing." Mr. Croskery said that a large section of the employers had told them they did not want what the Employers’ Association was demanding on their behalf. Mr. ’ Mountjoy: They may tell you that. The point is that these proposals are not drawn up by the Wellington Employers’ Association. They are not directly interested in this particular industry as an association. The representatives of this industry are here today, and they can speak for themselves as to what they have been told, and whether the proposals contain what they wait or not. Mr. Croskery said that the mere fact of the employers having a Government that they considered had given them a weapon to use on the workers made them think that it should be used harshly. It. would not, however, be used on the men he represented. Mr. Burton said that it was impossible for the Employers’ Association io draft what was proposed. Mr. Croskery contended that the Employers’ Association had a certain welldefined line of attack. “That is the reduction of the workers’ wages, and we are calling their bluff,” be said. - After an adjournment,.Mr. Mountjoy said that they had considered the representations made on behalf of the employees, but wanted to make it clear 'that the employers, were not desirous of reducing wages unnecessarily. If the unions were prepared to give relief Tn the conditions of employment, some agreement might be reached. “Traveling conditions are one of the things we want relief from,” he said. Should that be given the employers would seriously 'consider leaving wages as they were. “An Impossible Problem.” Following the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Croskery said that the .employees appreciated the offer of the other side regarding wages. With reference to touring men, however, he felt that they had arrived at an impossible problem. They had a trust Imposed upon them, and their first consideration must he honesty to the people they represented. Throughout the afternoon adjournments were macle by both parties, but the employers declined to compute travelling time in a worker’s hours, and no agreement was reached. The commissioner suggested that the question might be sent to the Arbitration Court, as, in his opinion, it would require a judicial mind to determine which of the parties was right Neither party desired, however, to take. that course. The commissioner said that he would notify the clerk of awards of the failure to agree, and within 30 days of his giving notice the award would expire.