LABOURERS' WORK

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 127, 26 November 1923, Page 8

LABOURERS' WORK

WAGES AND CONDITIONS

DISPUTE BEFORE CONCILIATION

COUNCIL.

Wages and conditions of work were discussed in Conciliation Council today, before Mr. W. Newton, Conciliation Commissioner, in regard to the Building Trades and General Labourers' dispute. The application for a new award was by the union, and trie main points of the claims were: —Hours of work—44-hour week, eight hours on five days and four on the remaining day.; rates of pay—general building trade labourers, 2s per hour; scaffold builders, 2s 4d per hour; tunnel men and timber men, 2s 4d per hour; other tunnel workers, 2s per hour; drillmen, spawlers, and expert, quarrymen on face of quarry or at an altitude of 20 feet or over, 2s 3d per hour ;other warkers in quarry, 2s per hour; other .workers in quarry, 2s era, not less than 2s 2d per hour, employers to find boots or clogs and overalls. •

Special provisions are sought for suburban country work; for under-rate workers. For the empoyment of youths the following rates were claimed:—Up to 17 years of age, £1 7s per week; up to 18 yeaTs of age, £1 13s per week; up to 19 years of age, £l 19s per week; UP *° 20 years of age, £2 5s per week. The representatives of the employers are Messrs. \V. Parkin, A. Fletcher, and O: M'Lean. The union's representatives were Messrs. C. Gore, J. Read, and J. 11. Campbell. Mr. W. A. Grenfell appeared as agent for the employers. The employers' counter-claims were for the renewal of the old award, the minimum general rate being Is 81d per hour, and the week's work 47 hours. The council agreed to the exemption of freezing companies from the award. In regard to the counter-claims, Mr. Campbell said it was hardly worth while discussing the proposed abolition of the preference clause, and the claim for the maintenance of the ruling rate of Is Bfd an hour. Mr. Fletcher pointed out that the labourer's wage was the basic wage, and if it were raised skilled labour would ask for more accordingly, and the public would foot the bill.

Mr. Campbell said that he had to .pull up several smaller employers last winter for paying under the wr-etched minimum rate of Is BJd— in some cases even as low as Is sd. ■

Mr, Grenfell: "The employers do not stand for any such thing—for payment of wages below rates." In regard to preference, Mr. Grenfell said that no obstacle should be placed m the way of a man earning his living. Mr. Fletcher: "We do not object to the union, we do not object to the minimum; we do not object to decent conditions ; but to have a preference clause for general labourers is something contrary to British justice." Mr. Read pointed out that the union had to exist, and it was the only means an unskilled labourer had of securing justice.

_ Mr. Fletcher: "I can see no reason in the wide world for a preference clause for general labourers." Mr. Campbell: "If there is anyone requiring protection more than anybody, it is the unskilled labourer. The preference clause is to protect the unskilled labourer." . ■ . .

Mr. Grenfell: "There is always the minimum wage." .Mr. Campbell: "How could he get the minimum wage without'the union,Tand iiovv could the union exist without a. preierence clause?"

It was provisionally decided to accept the Courts preference clause. The council proceeded to discuss hours. I! or the employers,' it was pointed out that a 44-hour week would conflict with the carters award and other awards concerned with the building trade. After some discussion it was decided to leave the hours as in the old award. It was agreed that in tunnel work shifts should be not exceeding eight hours, and m wet work six hours a. day; that a full week's work for building trades labourers should be 44 hours a week, as in the old award.

On the question of the claim for increased wages, Mr. Fletcher said that the issue was so important that it should be left to the Court. Mr. Read said the union would cer>inly endeavour to get the Court to see the matter in a different light from that which had guided it in the past,' The average employer was prepared to pay more for the average labourer than the minimum, but was not prepared to say

Mr Fletcher said the employers wanted to be in £he position for paying qualified men more than the minimum wage ' Aifter further discussion, the wa^es question was referred to the Court ° Mr. Campbell asked for the excision of the claims regarding the''employment Oi youths, with wages graded'from £1 7s upwards. It was a disgrace to encourage the employment of youths in this way to become navvies. Mr. Fletcher agreed that it was very deplorable to see youths and young men undertaking such work, when there was such an appalling lack of skilled workers ihe Council agreed to the "clauses as toM tie rate of wages claimed. The Council agreed to the remaining clauses on the basis of the old award iJie term of the award was left open. Ihe Council then adjourned.