PROFIT-SHARING

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 26, 31 January 1924, Page 9

PROFIT-SHARING

OBJECTIONS TO AWARD.

An unusual number of objections were received when the Dominion Concilia- . tion Council commenced the hearing of the shop, assistants' dispute yesterday, from parties who did not want ,to be covered by the award. Some interesting comments resulted. . The first objection was from employees of M'Gruer and Co., Napier, who objected on the ground that the j thirty employees had been working on' j"a profit-sharing system Which had ■j proved quite satisfactory to all, and i would be upset by awards. At the moment tho accumulated sums of thirty employees amounted to £4500. The -award-threatened to rob the employees - of very satisfactory conditions; and at 7 the same time to upset the scheme which ' went so far towards solving the capitallabour difficulty, a scheme -which1 had1 been worked up over a period of. ten years. . ' ' • ' Mr. A. W. Croskery (union' representative) said the union could see no ■ reason for exemption, and Mr.B. L. Hammond, for the employers, stated that he had advised M'Gruer's that the award should not affect the position. The only change that would seriously affect them would be a rise in wages. This, however, he had suggested, could be met by an adjustment" in the distribution of profits. -.- ■ ' ■ ?: The council disagreed 'with the application/for exemption. ' Andther Hawkes Bay firm asked for exemption on the same grounds. A union assessor: "There must be a lot of profits up there." , Mr. Hammond: "Yes. I think it is perhaps because there has been no award there to dissipate the profits." A Palmerston North employers' organisation objected to being included. Seventy-two employees stated that this was another attempt—and two similar attempts had been repelled—toi force them to join an organisation likely to take action that would spoil the present good feelings. Mr. Hammond: "Mr. Croskery, you had better go up there with a big sledgehammer." Mr! Croskery: "We had 400 employees who objected like that in Wellington in 1912. We followed up the . petition, and signed them all on." Mr. Hammond intimated that the employers were not supporting any of these objections. The council as a whole recommended that the objections be over-ruled.