DRIVERS’ DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 235, 3 July 1939, Page 13

DRIVERS’ DISPUTE

Employers Held To Blame If Trouble Results

MR. PARLANE’S VIEW

"If trouble results* tlie employers, by their refusal to have'the matters dealt with by a disputes committee, muse shoulder the responsibility,” said Mr. A. Pirrlane, president of the New Zealand Drivers’ Federation, in a statemetu on the recent dispute. "On receipt of word that there was trouble in Auckland and on recelv lug the details,” said Mr. Parlanc, "I got in touch with Mr. T.'O. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Employers Federation, with the object of seeing whether the points of difference could be referred to a disputes committee. He was favourable to this course, and I communicated with the officials of tl'-e Auckland Union accordingly. The secretary and assistant-secretary of the Auckland union came to Wellington with the object of having the matters, in dispute dealt with by a disputes committee, as provided for in the Motor and Horse Drivers’ Award. We met the employers on Friday morning, but we found it wars not a disputes committee meeting, but merely a conference with the employers. “After hearing our arguments, the employers said that if there were any matters which in their opinion should be referred to a disputes commltee, they would agree to that course being followed. 'After discussing the matter till the luncheon adjournment; we retired amd met them again in the afternoon at 3.30. The employers then gave us their decision, which was a refusal fq refer the matters in dispute to a disputes committee i>rovided for in the award. “The principal matters in dispute were: (1) The interpretation of the country) work clause, and (2) a position that had arisen through a drivelleaving his employer after he had put in a considerable number of weeks of 52 hours which were not equalized by a corresponding number of weeks of 36 hours. . ... . ■ • .■ ■■■■ ■■

"Though the employers refused to have this particular matter referred tb a disputes committee, they said that should any similar matter arise in the future they would agree to it going to a disputes committee,” said Mr. Parlane. “It seems hard to understand the employers’ attitude in this connexion. Surely, if a-Similar case to the one quoted would lie a proper matter to refer to a disputes committee, why is not this particular case a proper one to refer to a disputes committee? “The third matter which was causing trouble and dissatisfaction was the delay by the Court of Arbitration in hqaring two cases which had been submitted to it on appeal., in respect to these two cases the employers joined with the representatives of the union in a request to „the. Minister .of Labour that he do all he could to expedite the hearing of the cases. The Minister promised to do this, and I have no doubt that this particular matter will be attended to at the earliest possible moment.”