LABOURERS’ AWARD

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 45, 17 November 1941, Page 10

LABOURERS’ AWARD

Workers’ Reply To Case Of Employers The employers’ submissions in the Court of Arbitration hearing of the Builders’ and General Labourers Union application for a new award, were replied to by the workers’ advocate, Mr. L. M. Butler, when the case concluded at Wellington. . . ■ , .. , Mr. Butler, examining the figures submitted by the employers’ advocate Mr. W J. Motintjoy, said these were of returns supplied by 70 builders which, it was claimed, showed the average earnings of their builders’ labourers to be more than £5 a week. He submitted that these returns were unreliable and inaccurate as ouitles to the Court. In these figures overtime hours were calculated, but there was nothing to indicate what was overtime and what was ordinary time. Ine figures were stated to cover 12 months, but they included numerous men employed tor short periods only. One large return covered six months, with no indication whether the period was winter or summer. Mr. Butler said that Mr. Mountjoy had calculated all time lost through wet weather on a flat basis ot 2/4 an hour, while in the average earnin"s received, no indication was given to the Court of the wages paid on other jobs, some of which carried more than 2/4 an I,olir - .■ \- ... While returns were Iron: all oier New Zealand, only live returns were produced from Wellington employers. Of these five, there had been only time to examine three. In one case, Mr. Mountjoy s return showed only two labourers employed over the 12 months, when actually that employer had employed more than 33 labourers. In another Wellington return, seven labourers had been shown as being employed by a certain employer, while the employer himself had staled that there were an additional 4o casual labourers employed. In the third ease, tlie returns showed only live men employed, when actually there had been moie thiin live times that number. Mr. Butler said that, iu his opinion, the statements made to the Court in respect of the returns were incomplete and inaccurate, and as such could not serve to advise the Court of the actual position. 'The statements .submitted by the union, which had been supported by sworn evidence, showed that tlie average earnings of builders' labourers, including the 5 per cent, increase, ami allowing for wages taxation, was approximately £3 117- a -10-liour week, when based on 2/4 an hour. Decision was reserved.