NEW AWARD SOUGHT

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 175, 19 April 1940, Page 7

NEW AWARD SOUGHT

4 Dominion Cycle Workers CLAIM FOR MORE WAGES Classitieatioii, hours of work, wages, and provisions relating to the employment of females were the principal questman in dispute when cycle workers soiP'ht :i new Dominion award and higher wages in the Court of Arbitration. Wellington, je&tei dav. The Court consisted of Mr. .Justice Tyndall, and Messrs. A. D. Monteith (workers' representative) and M. E. Anderson (employers’ representative). After hearing evidence the Court reserved its decision. Mr G T. Thutstou (Christchurch) appeared as workers’ advocate, and Mr. W. J. Mountjoy (Wellington) as employers “ ll 'nm 'union asked that cycle stand attendants be included in the award, said Mr Thurston. . He added that tn a nu über of cities there were establishments which fettered for the parking ot. cycles and attendants were required to. 1m U minor adjustments. such a.s icpairtu., punctures', hilt were not included in any '"'Referring to the hours of work. Mr. Thurston said the union did not expect the Court to make a great alteration, but considered there should be some amendments to the wording ot the clause and ilial the hours should be clocked between 8 a.m. ami 5 !>."'• on the first five nays of the week. ...:,t. The question ot wages was dealt with b'- Mr Thurston, who quoted from previous awards to’ prove the contention that the margin between cycle wor»eis and tradesmen tinder engineers awards had been lid. on the hourly rate ot pay till I!)'3S. In dial, year the Court had awarded cvcle workers 2/64 nn hour and the union'claimed that the increasing ot the margin at that time was pot justified. The union was asking the Court. Mi. 'Thurston added, to award wages that would make the margin between engineers and cycle workers not greater than l a d. ,ll 'jlr U Thurston called evidence regarding the skill required in cycle repair "° lk ' Empoyers’ Opposition. The employers opposed the inclusion of cvcle stand attendants in the classification of workers, said Mr. Mountjoy. but were prepared to agree to a sub-c ause stating that nothing in the award should apply to persons solely employed as cvcle stand attendants unless they performed work covered by the provisions of the award, which should not include the inflation of tyres or the replacement. o valve tubes. It was claimed that th s work of attending cycle parking stands required no skill and was not a part ot a cvcle mechanic's work. Mr. Mountjoy said the employers asked for the provisions of the hours ot work clause in the current award with slight amendment. They were agreeable Io a -iO-bour week, and a five-day week in anv wholesale muss production factory. but required the retention of the fi.'.-dav week in retail establishments. "\Ve are not asking for a si-d;I.V l .V \vek in mass production factories.' Mr. Motintiov added, "but contend that it is essential. so as to give service to the general public in retail shops, for attendants to b" present for such purposes on Saturday mornings. Evidence will be placed before the Court to show the necessity ol these provisions.” It was also submitted, said Mr. Mountjnv. that there was no real argument in 'favour of departing from the rates fixed bv the Court in the current award. It wps hiirdly necessary, but perhaps proper I'm- the employers to advise the Court ol the increases in costs that had taken place in connexion with the running ot a business since the last award was made, and evidence would be called t.o establish this. The employers claimed that the rates at present paid were fair and reasonable and came into line with the rates paid to other workers in other industries. Question of Higher Costs. "It is further claimed,” Mr. Mouutoy added, "that any increase made would have to be borne by the employers unless the Price Tribunal agrees that they be passed on to Hie public. Assuming there wns an increase in wages and also that the Price Tribunal agreed to the dealers increasing prices, tve ask: Mho would be called on tj> meet the added cost? In our opinion there is one answer—the workers who use cycles as a means of transport. , , . "In substantiation, it is submitted that the greater number of cycles used in New Zealand are owned and ridden by workers. We, therefore, submit that considering that the rate of 2/64 an hour is a very good wage, it would be unfatr to increase the benefits to one very small section of workers which will reflect on a very large number of workers, the users of cycles. To use an axiom, it would he robbing Peter to pa.v Paul.” Mr. Mountjoy sai.d provision was also wanted for the employment of female workers in mass production factories. He called evidence in support of his submissions.