TAXI INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 208, 29 May 1940, Page 7

TAXI INDUSTRY

Claim For Higher Wages DOMINION AWARD SOUGHT Many questions concerning the taxicab industry in New Zealand were argued in the Court of Arbitration in Wellington yesterday when drivers sought higher wages and a new Dominion award. A ittrrtial settlement was reached in Conciliation Council and the only clauses the Court was asked to settle were 'those relating to hours of work, wages ami holidays. The hearing will be continued today. Mr. Justice Tyndall is presiding and associated with him are Messrs. A. L. Monteith (workers’ representative) and W. E. Anderson (employers’ representative). Mr. F. C. Allerby is appearing as workers’ advocate, and Mr. 11. J. Bishop is advocate for the employers. The workers claimed a minimum weekly wage of £5/10/-, with an additional 5/- a week for drivers on duty between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. A 40-hour week, certain statutory holidays and three weeks’ leave on full pay for each nine months’ service were also claimed. The employers were agreeable to a minimum weekly wage of £4/10/- and an annual holiday of not less than seven days. The rate offered for casual drivers was 2/- an hour ordinary time and 2/6 an hour for time worked in excess of 10 hours on any one day. The workers’ claims for casual drivers were 3/1 and 3/7 an hour respectively. The first Dominion award for taxidrivers was made in 1926, said Mr. Allerby, and though it was reasonably satisfactory at the time conditions had since changed and the award would not be acceptable today. After quoting extracts from the report of the committee set up by the Government to investigate the industry throughout New Zealand. Mr. Allerby said that since then taxi services had been brought under the control of the Transport Incensing Act. Deferring to hours of work, Mr. Aller-

by said the passenger transport drivers’ award stipulated that drivers of omni-' buses substantially engaged in town and suburban work Should have an 80-hour fortnight, with a maximum of 4-1 in any one week without payment of overtime. The taxi drivers claimed that the hours should be made weekly in their award, but it was recognized that a certain elasticity in the hours of work was^warranted. They were, therefore, prepared to accept the maximum weekly hours stipulated in the passenger drivers’ award and relating to omnibus drivers. The workers were also asking for an eighthour day within a span .of 10 hours. They considered that this limit of hours was very necessary, for the reason that the taxi-driver was called on to drive in ail weathers and in the most congested traffic areas. The hours could be reduced if those engaged in the business coordinated and distributed the services. Though an improvement of 14 per cent, had been made since 1937-38, because of the new regulations, the accident rate in the taxi business, compared with other transport services, was very high, but it was the union’s endeavour to minimize tin's as far ns possible. ’’The Court will help in this direction by reducing the hours of work to a minimum,” said Mr. Allerby. “The present hours permit of a driver being on call for too, long a period.”

Caso for Employers. Mr. Bishop said the case before the Court was unusual and difficulties caused by the owner-driver question had to, be considered when an award was being made for drivers working on wages. It was impossible to make any award applicable to owner-drivers, and the award must he ineffective to a certain extent. The regulations in existence today had proved to be largely ineffective in that they laid not achieved what they had been designed to achieve. The Court would be aware, Mr. Bishop added, that the industry was a peculiar one in a number of other ways. It was faced with keen competition, and in the absence of the necessary regulations the. Court could not bring the .whole of the industry within the. scope of the award. This competition could not be controlled effectively and a large proportion of business was taken from what might be termed the legitimate employer, eaid Mr. Bishop. "There are other particular factors,” he added, “and I don’t think any other industry must allow for such a proportion of (lead time and empty running. Furthermore it is essentially a luxury business!, and riding in a taxicab is one of the first luxuries that can be dispensed with when the necessity arises.” Mr. Bishop said the union might contend that competition was now controlled in the taxi industry, but he would reply that though the regulations were a step in the right direction, it was not possible or practicable to enforce them against the owner-driver. Referring to the claim for higher wages on statutory holidays, Mr. Bishop said these holidays were not necessarily busy days for taxi drivers, even if it. were possible to charge higher fares, lie added that there were approximately IaOO licensed taxis iii the Dominion, of which only 150 were driven by workers, a figure.which did not include men temporarily employed. Co-ordination and amalgamation, as suggested by the workers. was not possible. Evidence was called to show that though higher charges could not be made by the employers, their costs had risen considerably. particularly within recent, months when there had been a substantial increase in the prices of benzine and oil. The Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m. and will resume at .10 a.m. today.