40-HOUR WEEK SOUGHT BY WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 153, 25 March 1938, Page 15

40-HOUR WEEK SOUGHT BY WORKERS

Employers Urge Uniformity CLAIMS OF SHIPWRIGHTS AND BOATBUILDERS A claim that conditions in the industry had so changed in the past 19 months that a 40-hour week was now practicable was made on behalf of the shipwrights and boatbuilders of the northern,"Wellington and Otago Industrial districts during the hearing of their claims in the Arbitration Court, Wellington, yesterday for a new award. When application was made to the court in August, 1936, for a 40-hour week for the industry in the Wellington district, the court refused it, but Mr. F. P. Walsh, on behalf of the workers, urged that the industry was now more prosperous and able to stand any added expense that might be involved. Yesterday’s application was heard before Mr. Justice Hunter, with whom were associated Mr. W. E. Anderson (employers’ representative) and Mr. A. W. Croskery (workers’ representative). Mr. Walsh appeared for the workers and Mr. G. H. Norman for the employers. Mr. W. J. MOuntjoy appeared to make certain representations on behalf of the Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. Mountjoy said the Wellington Harbour Board was asking for" partial exemption from the award. For the sake of uniformity it desired to be allowed to pay wages on the usual day observed. The workers would raise no objection to that, Mr. Walsh said. Another point was in relation to holidays, added Mr. Mountjoy. The board wished to observe its regulation holidays, but the workers would be protected by it proviso that if the award granted more holidays these would be allowed. The board also asked that it be not bound in respect of casual labour required for the docking and undocking of vessels on th? board’s floating dock. Mr. Walsh said it had been agreed in conciliation council that slipping and unslipping and docking and undocking of vessels should be done by shipwrights assisted by labourers.. Mr. Mountjoy: That is what we arcasking for, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether the men are shipwrights or carpenters. Mr. Croskery: Carpenters are governed by their own award and don’t enter into this discussion. Evidence in support of his contention that the men employed by the board at tlie dock were wharf carpenters and not shipwrights was called by Mr. Mountjoy. Witnesses stated that if the award required the employment of shipwrights, the board would not be able to supply them. Workers’ Bequest. The New Zealand Federated Shipwrights and Boat-builders’ Industrial Association of Workers was asking for an award covering the Auckland district, including Gisborne and the Wellington and Otago districts, said Mr. Walsh. There had been no agreement on hours or wages and only partial agreement on a number of other matters, including meals and mealtimes, overtime, holidays and suburban work. Mr. Walsh said that the parties appeared to be furthest apart on tbe question of hours. The court would not be affected by tbe fact that on August 15, 11)36. if bad refused to amend the existing Wellington (12 miles radius) shipwrights, boat-builders and ship's carpenters’ industrial agreement. More Ilian 19 months had elapsed since the previous decision. In that period important changes had

taken place and, in consequence, the que»tion had to be reconsidered. Mr. "Walsh urged that the court was justified in arriving at a different conclusion now because industry and commerce were more prosperous and consequently the industry was more able to stand any added expense that might be incurred. The- industry generally had progressed toward the final adoption of the 40-hour week. The service it required from shipwrights and boat-builders could be more conveniently rendered in 40 hours now than it could a year and a half ago. Many employers had adopted the 40-hour week of their own volition, and what they had done voluntarily could be done generally if uniformly enforced. The employers, continued Mr. Walsh, had to prove affirmatively that it was impossible to carry on the industry efficiently under a 40-hour week. In many cases the industry during the past 19 months had been carrying on with a five-day week and less than a 40-hour week. As far as Wellintgon was concerned there had been no work on Saturday mornings since October 23, 1937. At Auckland no Saturday morning work was done in the bulk of the cases and at Dunedin a 15 or 20-hour week would cover the work ■because the men did not work any more than three days a week. 44-hour Week Wanted. Replying to Mr. Walsh’s arguments for a 40-hour wejsk, Mr. Norman said the w’ljple matter had recently been argued before Mr. Justice O’Regan in the Dominion plumbers’ case at Aiiekland in which a decision extending the hours to 44 a week for ship repair work was given. Since September 1, 1936, when the Factories Act began to operate, the question of 44 hours for ship work had been ‘before the court on many ‘occasions and in 13 awards and two agreements made since that date the hours for ship repair work had been fixed at 44. If hours under the new award were reduced, the position would become impossible with one union working reduced hours and all others 44 hours. ‘‘When a ship the size of the Awatea goes under overhaul at a New Zealand port such as Wellington,” continued Mr. Norman, “twelve shore awards or agreements become operative. Further, there are always some of the ship’s crew standing by on shore wages and governed by ten awards or agreements, in addition to the other incidental .awards covering such workers as the storemen who issue stores for the work, drivers who carry stores to the work, clerics who record time and work out the pay sheets, and sometimes even the laundry workers. This makes a total of 26 awards operating on a ship under repair or overhaul, all of which provide for Saturday work. The number is reduced in the case of a smaller ship because of fewer maritime awards, but it is seldom reduced below twenty. “There must be some relationship between the conditions in all of these awards, otherwise the employer would not know where he stood, and we submit that there is a broad principle involved which must be recognised: Where large numbers of various workers are employed in a particular industry, their conditions of work should be the same throughout the industry, though the employers recognise the variation in the skill of the different classes of workers which is compensated by variations in wages. If the shipwrights were granted a 40hour week while others work. 44 hours, it would be a case of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ with a vengeance. I do not desire to imply that the shipwrights do not play an important part in the repairing of ships, but to show that, numerically, they are in a great minority.” Matters Agreed On. At the conclusion of yesterday's hearing the parties had agreed that the overtime rate for seagoing shipwrights should be 3/6 an hour and for leading hands 3d. an hour extra. It was also agreed that the ordinary meal times be from 12 to 1 and from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., except in case of emergency, when the working time may be extended to five hours without additional payment. The parties, however, are at variance on the question of whether double time or time and a half should be paid for work done during meal times. At 5 p.m., when tbe court rose till this morning, Mr. Norman had not completed calling his witnesses.