LINOTYPISTS’ PAY

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 156, 29 March 1938, Page 3

LINOTYPISTS’ PAY

Calculation Of Piecework

Remuneration ARGUMENT BEFORE COURT OF ARBITRATION Argument on two clauses of the New Zealand typographers’ award covering the method of computing linotype operators’ piecework and their extra pay for night work was heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday. The clauses were those upon which agreement could not be reached in Conciliation Council.

Mr. Justice O’Regan,. Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and -Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative) were on the bench. Mr. K. Baxter, who appeared for the workers, said that it was requested that a man’s output should be measured on the point system instead of on the en-quad system as at present. The system that was wanted, Mr. Baxter said, was the only one used in Australia, England aud other countries. Piece operators had not received a restoration of the wage cut of 1930. So dissatisfied were they with the present system that all question of a return to the 1930 money basis had been entirely overshadowed by the persistent demand for the reintroduction of the point system. Discussing the request by the employers that the night-rate allowance to linotype piece operators be changed from one-tenth extra on their weekly earnings to a flat maximum rate of 10/-, Mr. Baxter said that the present clause had been in the award since 1912. The social disadvantages of night work were pointed out, and it was alleged that the employers’ counterclaim had resulted from operators’ efforts to win back the point system of computing their earnings, lost over eight years ago. The clause had been conceded by employers because they realised that higher production would result and, now that the standard output was higher, and as high as was physically and mechanically possible, a reduction in rates was sought. The employers made a counter-pro-posal that the clause in the award read: “The method of ascertaining the multiplier is to take the average number of the actual ’ letter matrices and spacebands per line. A spaceband shall count as a letter.”

Mr. J. M. Hardcastle, for the employers, pointed out that this was a simple amendment of the existing clause by which redundant reference to en-quads was removed and the arbitrary provision for a minimum multiplier for eight point type was repealed. The workers’ organisation was asking for measurement of output by an artificial method which had no relation to the actual work done. They wanted to use a hand type-setting standard which did not. apply to machine-setting, but would give a false measurement and do injustice all round, including the workers. The fairness of the present method had been established by investigation and by practical operation. The court on a previous occasion, after exhaustive investigation, had discredited the points-system ‘multipliers as productive of results that did not truly represent the output and it had decided that the present method of counting the average number of letters and spaces to the line was fair.

The average earnings of piece-work operators were £B/18/- a week last year, the average week being 36 hours. Their employment was regular and their remuneration much higher than that of any other class of New Zealand tradesman. The workers were asking at the same time for the court to approve weekly wages for linotype operators doing similar work which would be £5/15/- for day work and £6/5/- for night work. This was for a 40-hour week. He denied that pay was cut in 1930. Referring to the night nllowain-e. Mr Hardcastle said the extra allowance for all oilier workers employed .-if night was 10 per cent, with a maximum of 10/- n week. The inconvenience of night work was no greater in the ease of pieceworkers than in the case of weekl.v wageworkers. Indeed, pieceworkers in most offices finished work earlier than the others. Decision was reserved. I