THEATRE WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 47, 19 November 1936, Page 15

THEATRE WORKERS

Arbitration Court Proceedings CLAIM FOR NEW AWARD Nearly seven hours were spent in the Arbitration Court yesterday with the hearing of evidence In support of the application by the ■Wellington Industrial District Theatrical and Places of Amusement Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers (Front of House section) for a new award. .Mr. Justice I’age presided, Messrs. W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative) being associated with him. Mr. A. W. Croskery appeared for the applicants and Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, secretary of the Wellington Employers’ Association, for the respondents, Messrs. J. C. Williamson (N.Z.) Ltd., Amalgamated Theatres Ltd., Messrs. John Fuller and Sons Ltd., and other amusement .proprietaries. “It is pleasing to note that we have settled in conciliation council the whole of the dispute with the exception of wages for ticket-sellers, ticket-takers, doorkeepers, ushers, monitors and other theatre-attendants, night hands and wrestling and boxing attendants, hours of work for caretakers and cleaners, wages for caretakers and/or cleaners, or cleaners other than caretakers, the term of the annual holidays, the rate, that should be paid as a laundry allowance, theatre attendants’ work and the term of the award,” stated Mr. Croskery. “The first matter with which we intend to deal is wages for ticket-sellers, females, and youths. The union is claiming for these* workers £2/12/6 a week. The old award rate is £l/14/- a week, but with this the workers have never been satisfied, as it was a wage which would not permit young women to live in any degree of comfort, and we propose to call evidence which we think will conclusively prove this statement. Spread of Hours. “It is useless to say that because a woman only works 32 hours a week she can secure other employment in order to augment her income. The 32 hours is merely a factor connected with the industry, but it is not the 32 hours that actually counts so much as it is the spread of the hours. If industries are going to demand from workers long spread over the clock hours, Claiming that these women had been underpaid, Mr. Croskery said that the same applied to other theatre attendants excepting caretakers and cleaners, but in the case of the latter workers they were employed only four hours less than the 40-hour week as defined in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In Australia the various attendants were separated in the award as far as wages were concerned, but in New Zealand they were all bunched in one group. Although their hours of work varied from 26 a week to 32, or in a few cases 36, it was the spread of those hours, from 10.45 a.m. until 11 p.m., that was the very important factor in the case. Even if it was practicable for them to secure other employment, that spread of hours would certainly hinder, if not completely stop them. Male Workers. “The claim ro my mind, seems to be a most reasonable one, in view of the court’s basic rate pronouncement of £3 16/- a week . for the most unskilled worker,” observed Mr, Croskery, when referring to the union's claim of £4 12/6 a week for males employed as tieket-takers, doorkeepers, ushers or monitors. He pointed out that they had to be well-dressed, and also had to have a certain amount of refinement and education as they were in very close touch with the proprietors’ clients. Mr. Croskery then outlined the claims for theatre attendants and those employed at wrestling and boxing matches. Forty-Hour Week. A 40-hour week was claimed for caretakers and cleaners, Mr. Croskery pointing out that the court had awarded such hours to these workers in Auckland, and as a 40-hour week was possible for such workers in general industry, he claimed that there was no reason why it should not be possible in the picture industry. A imininiU'in wage of £5/10/- a week was Bought for caretakers or cleaners, with the fixed overtime rates of time anda half. For cleaners other than caretakers, 3/- an hour was claimed for males and 2/6 for females. Fourteen days’ annual holiday were sought for all permanent workers. The union asked for a laundry allowance of 5/- a week for male workers required to wear dress suits. They also asked that uniforms, shoes or other articles which the employers required the workers to .wear, be washed, laundered and repaired at the employers’ expense, and that special shoes or any other article not included in the workers’ usual outdoor wearing apparel be supplied by the employer. An application was made to have the term of the award made longer tbau one year. Mr. Croskery called over 20 female theatre attendants to the witness-box in support of the union’s claims. The majority of these stated that they received £l/14/- a week, and found it most difficult to live after they had paid board, which ranged from 15/- a week to 30/- a week, the average being about 25/-. Some of the girls were being paid £2/7/11 a week, but as this was made up of 11 hours’ overtime payment from morning sessions, which had now been cut out, a eut in this salary was anticipated. In addition, tram fares paid ranged from 3/6 to 7/-, which Mr. Croskery claimed left the workers practically nothing to live on, let alone meet contingencies such as medical expenses. Employers’ Case. “The conditions In the motion-picture industry to-day are not comparable with those ruling in 1928 when the existing award was nade,” observed Mr. Mountjoy, when opening the case for the respondents. “'The prices for attendance at the theatres are slightly reduced. Competition is keener. There are many more theatres. Films are much dearer, the increase in cost being 70 per cent., which has to be made up on the takings. In 1928 the cost of films was 20 per cent, of the takings, but to-day it is 34 per cent. General overhead expenses are greater to-day. I think it is significant that many of the large picture organisations operating in 1928 have undergone combination with others, or complete reconstruction, to enable them to carry on.” The employers claimed that the rates of wages operating in 1931 be again inserted in the award for ticket-sellers, ticket-takers, doorkeepers, ushers, monitors and other theatre attendants. For casual or performance workers, a rate of 4/- a performance was proposed for cities and towns with populations of 5000 or more, and 2/6 for smaller towns. The employers pointed out that the old award referred only to theatres within a ten-mile radius of the Wellington Chief Post Office, but the new award covered the whole of the Wellington industrial district, in which there were many small theatres which could not afford to pay higher rates. It was pointed out that in the recently-settled Southland dispute, the rates agreed upon wore 3/6 for Invercargill, 2/6 for Gore, and 2/- for other towns.

The employers also proposed a 48-hour week for caretakers and/or cleaners, claiming that anything less was impracticable in the industry. Respondents submitted that the 1931 wages be inserted in the award for payment to caretakers, and that such workers receive 10 days’ annual holiday. For other workers the employers sought seven days , The employers opposed the workers’ claims for laundering of uniforms, but proposed that, the laundry allowance be increased from 2/- to 2/6. ■ Excepting that they (suggested tW

the term of the award be for two years, the employers requested the court to fix the remaining clauses that were in dispute in conformity with and along the lines of the award in force in 1931. The union’s claims generally were strongly opposed. Evidence in support of the employers’ proposals was given by Messrs. .J. M. Dunn (manager of the State Theatre, Wellington), F. J. Ansell (North Island manager for J. C. Williamson Picture Corp.), aud W. Burton (manager of John Fuller and Sons, Ltd.). The court reserved its decision.