TYPOGRAPHICAL AWARD

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 90, 13 October 1920, Page 6

TYPOGRAPHICAL AWARD

EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES,

On behalf of the executive of the Typographical Federation, Mr. A. T. Carter (president), writes: —

There is a letter appearing in your issue of yesterday, signed by Mr. F. Pirani, on behalf of the Master Printers Association, which is little better than a tissue of misleading statements. Your correspondent, after lamenting the delay of the Labour Department in printing the award, makes this extraordinary statement: "And yet I can have no sympathy with the workers in the matter, as the hold-up is due to an attempt to introduce a new provision into the preference clause without specially directing the attention of the.Court to it. . . . Indeed, we were assured at the conference that there was nothing new in the preference clause." That assurance is as correct as every other given by the Typographical Federation' in its negotiations with the employers. The provision objected to is identically the same as appearing in typographical awards for years past, and we are somewhat surprised Mr. Pirani, a"s a practical journalist, did not take the trouble to verify his facts before making such a parade of industrial innocence. In any case, it has nothing to d,o with the validity of the award, but is merely a matter affecting the workers' organisation, for which Mr. Pirani's statement that "many of the workers object to" is a« correct as the statement that it was sprung on the employers and the Court. For half a century typographical organisations in New Zealand have devoted a portion of their funds towards out-of-work allowances and other benevolent objects among their members, and though the Supreme Court has ruled that industrial unions cannot legally collect dues for this purpose, we are hopeful of having legislation passed before the expiry of the present award validating such funds, which in the past have removed a burden from the public purse. In the meantime, our members are" content to trust one another. It is true that the Typographical Federation was shown, the copy of a letter purporting to have been sent by the employers' representative for "interpretation" to the Arbitration Court. It requires an.appeal from both parties to an award in order to Validate questions of interpretation for decision by the Arbitration Court., and as the Typographical Federation is in no doubt as to the meaning of the clauses of the award which the employees' representative is hazy over, it has nis time to waste in pettyfogging. We are quite prepared at any time to meet the employers by questions of interpretation in preference to claims and penalties for breach where there is legitimate doubt, but we do not intend in future to enable the employers to seek a of awards under the guise of "interpretation." The only matter of doubt about the award bo far as the Typographical Federation is concerned is the date when those employers who have not already done so propose to fulfil their obvious obligations and pay out the balance of the retrospective pay, much 1 overdue, to their workers.

REPLY FROM MR. PIRANI.

In reply to Mr. A. T. Carter, President of the Typographical Federation, Mr. FrsJ Pirani writes:—"Mr. Carter spent a third of a column for the purpose of assuring your readers that there is nothing new in the preference clause of the Typographical award. lam sorry to have to occupy your space to p.oint out that 1 Mr. Carter is wrong. If he* compares the last award (1917) with tlio new one he will be able to find a difference of 50 per ■cent."

IThe cabli news in this Isms accredited to "Tho Times" has appeared In that Journal, ba» only waere ajprtslly «t»«d M Mich news «v» editorial opinion of "Iht Timsj."l