FACTORY WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 12

FACTORY WORKERS

Granting of Periodical Increments PAY FOR HOLIDAYS Amending Bill Passes Crucial Stage • An attempt to secure greater elasticity in the granting of periodical increments to factory workers was made by members of the Opposition during tiie continuation of the committee stage of the Factories Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday. Steady progress was made with the remaining clauses, the lasi of which was passed in the late afternoon. The House then adjourned till the evening. The third reading will be taken at a subsequent sitting., Mr. S. G. Holland (Opposition. Christchurch North) moved. two amendments with the object of providing for annual increments, instead of half-yearly, and of altering the provision ‘in tlie Bill that increments must be made on the starting wage, whether an employee was paid more than the minimum or not. He said that as the law stood at present it was permissible for the employer to pay more than the minimum wage at any stage of the employee's service without having to carry the increase indefinitely. The effect of the Bill would be to force manufacturers to pay no more than the minimum wage to any of their employees. The Minister of Labour, Hon. H. T. Armstrong, said that before a contrary decision some time ago by the Court of Appeal the law had always been that increments must be paid on the existing wage, whether it was the minimum or not. He was convinced that the principle was a sound one. “Generally speaking, the employers of Labour are good people, but'if they were all good people there would he no need for this legislation,” said Mr. Armstrong. “In fact, we would not need any of this law at all if Christian people controlled industry. But as it is the average employer of labour insists on the law fixing minimum rates so that he can compete with the less scrupulous man who might pay lower wages merely to get the business.” I Mr. Holland complained that the Opposition, by agreeing originally to an increase of 40 per cent, in the minimum rates, had proved that it did not take up a niggardly attitude on the point. But when the Bill came back to the House the effect of changes made by the Government, had been to raise the wages rates.over-all by at least 70 per cent. What the Opposition wanted, he explained, was more elasticity in fixing the increments. There was a division on both amendments, the voting being against the amendments by 48 to 12 in each ease. Provision Against Dismissals. An unsuccessful effort was made by the Opposition to secure the elimination of the clause which provides against the dismissal of employees or a reduction in wages as a result of any reduction or alteration of working hours under the Bill. Mr. H. S. 8. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) referred to the position of a man who had just bought machinery worth £2OOO which would ultimately displace 10 mon. How was he going to faro if lie had gone to the expense of installing machinery and was not. to be permitted to dispense witli the services of the men who would not lie required? Mr. J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn) said the Government was concerned only with promoting efficient production. Mr. Kyle was arguing against something that would make business more efficient. “This clause prevents that employer from dismissing any of his staff,” said Mr. Holland, “and I fail to see how having a surplus of man-power in a factory will mean more efficient production. The clause is definitely worrying employers all over the Dominion, and there are certain timid employers who are already reducing their staffs, f can assure the Minister, however, that there is not an employer who will dismiss one hand if he can possibly avoid it. I am sure employers would show their appreciation by keeping their present staffs if the Minister dropped this clause.” Members of the Opposition called for a division on the clause, which was carried by 50 votes to 12. Young Workers' Future Jeopardised. The contention that the clause in the Bill which provides that when determining the rate of payment to factory workers, former periods of employment in factory work must lie taken into account by the employer might jeopardise the future of many young workers by preventing them from changing to suitable occupations was advanced by several Opposition speakers. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) moved an amendment which would have the effect of eliminating from that provision persons under 17 years of age. Mr. Coates claimed that the new legislation might bring under the provisions of the sub-clause a large group of young people who might lie prevented from changing their occupations when there was every justification for them doing so. He ((noted an actual example of a lad of 10 now engaged in a technical factory «•' some kind who had discovered that he wanted to change to a more congenial occupation with a better future for him. Because of the stipulation in the Bill about former periods of employment he might be prevented from securing the more suitable job. •’This sub-clause will have more restrictive influences than any other in the Bill,” said the Hon. Adam Hamilton (Opposition, Wallace). “It is quite likely that it will prevent hundreds of young boys and girls from seeking proper occupations. - ’ Mr. Kyle mentioned the freezing industry as one in which there were hundreds of youths engaged who had no intention of remaining in that industry. They would all be jeopardised by the clause.

Mr. Holland also pressed for the amendment. He asserted that it took manv youths in industry nt least a year to decide whether they intended to remain in it or change to a more suitable vocation.

The Minister, while nor. replying specifically to the point raised, informed the House that th e Government believed that many young boys in industry ought to be at school. “In tlie past permits have had to lie secured to allow young boys to start in industry. But now it is going to he much' more difficult, to got those permits.” Mr. Armstrong said. "We are going to make the starting age 15 and

no younger unless the circumstances are very exceptional.” The amendment was lost on the voices and the clause was retained in the Bill by 45 votes to 10.

Payment for Holidays. The clauses dealing with payment for holidays were tiro subject of considerable discusion. The only amendment carried was that put forward by the Minister providing that, the holiday pay stipulations in the Bill should override any provisions of this nature in arbitration awards or conciliation agreements. One amendment, moved by Mr. Hamilton, was to the effect that holiday pay should be payable only by the last employer by whom the worker was employed. He pointed out that as the clause in the Bill stood at present. a man working for two or more employers just before a holiday period could claim holiday pay from all of them. Mr. Holland raised the point of a man employed for a day in the fortnight before Christmas or Easter. Under the Bill he would be entitled to holiday pay. The Minister said the intention of the Bill was to provide for cases where men were engaged and then deliberately put off before a holiday in order to avoid tlie necessity for holiday pay. However, the points raised by the Opposition were worthy of consideration and he would be prepared to have the clause redrafted before the Bill went to Hie legislative Council. Mr. Hamilton agreed to withdraw his amendment.

When the Minister's own amendment was under discussion, Mr. Hamilton said the result of it would be that the Factories Act would override awards of tlie Arbitration Court. A general principle was being stated when it would be much more reasonable to leave the whole question to the discretion of the Arbitration Court. “In the framing of the original clause a mistake was made in the Law Drafting Office.” Mr. Armstrong said. "Tlie whole purpose of the clause is not to make Hie Bill subject to awards.” Mr. Hamilton said there were some classes of workers who, owing to the peculiar nature of their employment, had to be employed on Sundays and statutory holidays. Awards at present recognised that fact and provided that they should have time off on other days. Men engaged in tlie publication of newspapers provided a ease in point. They had to work on Sundays and holidays to produce tlie newspapers for the following days. Under Hie Bill, with Hie overriding of awards, they would have to be paid treble time.

"No labour is employed on Christinas Day or Good Friday unless it is compulsory that it should have to be employed,” Mr. Armstrong said. “If a man works on Sundays or'holidays he is entitled to extra time for it.” Mr. Armstrong’s amendment providing for the overriding of award provisions with regard to holidays was carried on the voices. Tlie remaining clauses of Hie Bill were passed without discussion and Hie Bill was reported to Hie House with amendments just before tlie tea adjournment,

During a display of tent-pegging by horsemen of tlie Queen Alexandra Mounted Rifles Regiment at Waiwakailio showground, New Plymouth, on Monday, a large crowd was horrified to see a trooper and his mount crash to earth together, and as the horse rose and bolted, the man was dragged behind it by one foot in the stirrup. Fortunately tlie stirrup leather parted under the strain. When the trooper rose slowly to his feet, disdaining assistance despite his ordeal, lie was greeted witli a spontaneous burst of applause. He was badly shaken and extensively bruised, but not seriously Injured.