STOREMEN & PACKERS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 105, 31 October 1923, Page 8

STOREMEN & PACKERS

CLAIM FOR INCREASED PAY

CONSIDERED BY CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

The Conciliation Council met to-day to hear a dispute between the Storemen and Packers' Union of Workers and the Wellington Wholesale Merchants' Association. Mr. W. Newton, Conciliation Commissioner, presided. The union was represented by Messrs. J. Tucker, H. Dyson, and A. L. Monteith, M.P., and the employers by Messrs. E. E. Stonebanks, W. J. Thompson, and W A. W. Grenfell.

The union's claim in respect to wazes was practically for an increase of 10 per cent. The employers filed a counter-proposal asking for what amounted to a renewal of the existing award. °

The detailed claim of the Workers' Union was as follows:—Storemen and packers over the age of 21 years employed at work usually performed by storemen and packers, such as receiving, delivery of, stowing, collecting, handling, and dispatching goods, shall be paid not less than the following wages •— Head storeman or packer in charge of one or more, £4 17s 6d per week; storeman or packer when only one storeman or packer is employed, £4 12s 6d ; ordinary storeman or packer, £4 7s 6d per week. Junior storemen or packers ■ Under 17 years of age, 28s 6d; from 17 to 18 years, 355; from 18 to 19, 455; from 19 to 20 years, 57s 6d; from 20 to 21 years, 70s; and thereafter the minimum wage.

QUESTION OF MINIMUM. WAGE. Mr. Grenfell said in respect to wages, he thought they must realise, in view ot the recent pronouncement of the Court, that there had been really no movement in regard to wages. The Court had practically said that it was a case of continuing the present rates; and the opinion of the meeting of employers which was held ' was that in regard to wages they could not see their way to grand any increase. Mr. Monteith: "The Court also said that when the new awards were made, the. standard wages were then to be considered."

Mr. Grenfell thought that as the present legislation had practically expired, the other side might claim that they were justified in going to the Court for a new award.

Mr. Monteith: "We feel that the wage at present paid is insufficient; and I think Mr. Dyson has had admissions from employers that that is so " Mr. Dyson: "Yes." Mr. Grenfell said that when the original dispute was before the Court it was found that there were twenty-three different classes of business affected by this dispute. Some storemen had very light'jobs, whilst others had heavier work. As the employers had had no indication from the Court as to the future basic wage, the employers were not prepared to anticipate what the Lourt was going to decide in that respect. ,

Mr. Dyson: "To be perfectly candid as far as our union is concerned, we do appreciate the conditions that exist at the present time between the majority of employers and the members of the Storemen s Union. Before we'brought this case forward, we went into-the matter very carefully, and we realised that it is only in the case of a comparative-ly-few employers that the minimum wa<*e is paid. As to the general conditions of the award, we have very little to find fault with, but there are a few firms which practically make the minimum the maximum We think the minimum wage £3 17s, is too low, taking into consideration the class of work performi:iv employers added a few shilling to the minimum wage, the union is quite willing to settle the whole matter on the basis of the present award " Mr. Grenfell remarked that the employers recognised that if any advance was made in wages in Wellington it was bound to have a' Dominion effect 4s to the question of what was a living wage—that was too big a matter for one section of employers to settle. He thought they were in duty bound to leave this .matter to the tribunal appointed by the Legislature to settle the question.

As no,agreement could be arrived at, the question of wages was referred to the Court for decision. An agreement was reached m regard to most of the other points in'the suggested award.