GAS WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 162, 5 April 1938, Page 7

GAS WORKERS

Claims For Dominion Award ARGUMENT IN COURT Many Objections Against Scope Argument and evidence in support of the workers’ application for a Dominion award covering the operations of gas undertakings were heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday. Wages and hours are the principal points at issue, but the first hour of the sitting was occupied with hearing applications by representatives of various trade unions to have deleted from the proposed award references to workers that they consider should belong to their unions. The court reserved decision on, the applications. The works affected are at Dannevirke, New Plymouth, Hawera, Wanganui, Palmerston North, Master! on, Oamaru, Dunedin, Invercargill, Greymouth, Westport, Nelson, Blenheim, Whangarei, Auckland, Birkenhead, Hamilton, Gisborne, Hastings, Wellington, Christchurch and Timaru.

• Mr. Justice O’Regan, Mr. W. Ceci Prime (employers’ representative) ant Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees’ repre sentative) were on the bench. Mr. J Roberts appeared for the workers, and Mr. W. E. Anderson for the employers. On behalf of the New Zealand Clerical Employees’ Association, Mr. W. N. Pharazyn applied for the exclusion of. meter-readers from the award. He pointed out that their work was essentially clerical. A Dominion award covering them was to be secured. The Christchurch clerical award provided for meter-readers. Mr. Roberts said the meter-readers had hitherto been covered by the gasworkers’ award. The Christchurch award was made in 1924. Mr. Pharazyn remarked that the men’s wages would be affected by the decision. The court was being asked to decide which union’s rules applied to meter-readers. His Honour said the Christchurch clerks’ award distinctly covered meterreaders and was still in force. “Industrial Buccaneering.” An application on behalf of various engine drivers’ unions that the award should not affect engine drivers was made by Mr. R. J. Reardon. The inclusion of locomotive drivers, Mr. Reardon said, was ‘‘industrial buccaneering reduced to a flue art.” Mr. Roberts contended that at each works there wasi only one locomotive driver, who, in most eases, drove a little “coffee-pot” inside the works. They had always been in the gas-work-ers’ union. Engine drivers’ work iu gas works was not confined to engine driving. , Mr. J. H. Collins applied for caretakers, cleaners and watchmen to be excluded. Mr. Roberts said that the gas company watchman’s duty was primarily , supervising pressure.

‘■Then a better definition should be made,” said Mr. Collius.

With this Mr. Roberts agreed. Mr. W. Roddick, for the New Zealand Federation of Bricklayers, asked for bricklayers to be excluded.

Mr. Roberts explained that lie did not wish to include bricklayers but men who patched retorts. Mr. Roddick: They are still bricklayers. Mr. Roberts denied that they were bricklayers. Position of Gasfitters. Mr. 11. Thomson applied on behalf of the New Zealand Plumbers and Gasfitters ’Federation for references to gasfitters to be struck out. Mr. Roberts said his union did not wish to include men who had served an apprenticeship, but men who were gasfitters only. Gasfitters did not require an apprenticeship. There was an award in existence for plumbers and gasfitters, but none for gasfitters alone. The men he wished included were eager to join his union. The result of a ballot of the men was submitted to the court.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomson were arguing about the ballot when his Honour indicated that the court had heard sufficient.

Claims for exclusion were made by representatives of the plasterers, local body officers, and warehouse employees. Mr. Thomson was not allowed to'call evidence, his Honour saying that the court wished to begin hearing the dispute and not to listen to banter and recrimination on a matter that ought to be settled elsewhere. One Industry—Many Trades. Mr. Roberts pointed out that men in gasworks performed several kinds of work, and it was desirable that the award cover all the workers, first to obviate disputes between unions and secondly to give employers mobility of labour. - ‘

A great number of small undertakings were included in the original application, but the representatives of the very small works and the union had agreed completely, he said, Under that industrial agreement hours were 40 a week, except in a retort house. In retort houses hours had been reduced from 56 to 44. Twenty small works hau” been included; 19 of them had signed and the other had decided to concur, so there’ was no need to refer further to them.

The Gas Workers’ Union was in a somewhat difficult position in regard to the application of the award. At the Wellington gas works, for instance, a great number of the men were members of the Gas Workers’ Union and also of the craft unions of their trades. A ballot had been conducted under the auspices of the Labour Department and the overwhelming majority of the workers had voted in favour of joining the New Zealand Gas Works and Related Trades Employees’ Union and thereby becoming covered by their award. Tradesmen were not included in the ballot, although he saw no reason for that and understood a further ballot would be held. The ballot had not been' taken and tradesmen were so dissatisfied that they signed a petition making application to become members of the Gas Workers’ Union. He submitted to the court the results of the ballot and copies of the petition. They showed that the majority of men wished to belong to the Gas Workers’ Union, and it was the men who should decide rather than the advocates before the

court. The union submitted that where a substantial majority of the workers engaged in any industry desired to be covered by an award then the court should give consideration to their opinion.

t Effect Of Machinery. Discussing wages. Mr. Roberts said the introduction of machinery had dis- , placed more labour in the gas industry ' than In any other. At Wellington, for instance, 12 men used to be employed in each shift at a busy period, but now, although tne output had increased E threefold, two men did the work. The ' industry was paying less for wages a ' thousand cubic feet of gas manufacL tured than 30 years ago. In spite of ' competition from electricity, cousunnl- ; tion off gas had increased year arter : year, its use in industry, for cooking and for heating having increased enor- ‘ mously. Wages of those working in gas-making and distribution were higher in New Zealand and overseas than in other industries because lui: work was laborious, hot and dirty ami men worked amid fumes. Thirty years ago when tradesmen were generally getting £3 a week Wellington gasworkers were paid over £4. The union asked that the difference continue. Generally speaking, gas-work-ers’ wages had not increased since 1928, and in many cases wages were the same as. in 1924. . After referring t<s the terms of an agreement with several small undertakings and the agreement with the Dunedin City Council, Mr. Roberts said the lowest wages of a gas stoker should be £6 a week, and he quoted wages actually paid in gasworks to show that thtfj. was recognised by many companies throughout the Dominion. Handstokers in Auckland and Christchurch, at least, should be paid the same as agreed upon at 1 Dunedin, £5/15/-. The court should bring stokers’ wages up to the highest paid in New Zealand When increases were being given in other industries gasworkers naturally expected a substantial increase. For day workers (tinsmiths, sheet metal workers, dry meter repairers where soldering had to be done to meters, gasfltters, main-laying gangers, retort setters and patchers, motor mechanics, electricians, blacksmiths and locomotive drivers), the union was asking £5/15/- a week. For coal workers, except the man doing a ceitain task at Wellington, £5/2/6 for 40 ( hours’ work was asked. The Dunedin , agreement was for 2/8} an hour.

Forty-hour Week claimed. Supporting the claim for a 40-hour week, Mr. Roberts said it was observed already in most undertakings, and in workers where it did not apply generally, the 44-hour week was worked by very few men. Despite the fact that more than half the workers were already working 40 hours, the union was willing that men employed in connection with the handling of coal, coke and arsbes and complaints men should work from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays at time and a quarter. If that rate could not be allowed, a general 40-houi week was requested. Workers from various gasworks gave evidence. An engine-driver from Miramar 6(rid he belonged to both the Gas Workers’ Union and the Engine Drivers’ Union, but preferred the former because under its agreement he would be paid more than under the latter’s award. Tiie workers’ case had not concluded when the court adjourned until this morning.