PLASTERING TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 70, 24 March 1931, Page 7

PLASTERING TRADE

NEW AWARD SOUGHT! ;

MATTERS IN DISPUTE

The Arbitration Court was engaged yesterday in hearing the Wellington.1 plasterers' (solid section) dispute. Thel matters which had .been referred -to th* Court'by the Conciliation; Council were1- ;,.'.; suburban and country work, carrying- ■ of tools, and the scope of the award. '■"'■■■■ .". Mr. .W. J. Mountjoy . appeared foil the employers,' and Mr.- W. Broadleyj . for the union. . .. . . .-' ■'.'■! ''.. , The .dispute was the result of de* mands made by the employers for a' ,\ new award, said Mr. Mountjoy.. Since : the employers made' their demands .on! ~ the union in July, 1030, a rapid altera--tion in the conditions of trade and em- ■ .'■' ployment had. taken place. Work had ~ become scarce, and the .depression, had !\ . been, the means of reducing the cost:of; ; :. living and wages in general. However^ , when, the employers made their ' demands, the present conditions were not anticipated, and that-was why the employers offered in their claims for the i new award the same rate of wages as in the-old award. The suburban work ". V clauses ;were still in dispute, but. the- * majority ■of the country, work clauses . had been, settled. "The clause'regardr ing the scope of the award was^ also mi;; dispute, the employees wishing.: to in- . 4 elude the;.Hawkes Bay district. A. new;.. ■ * clause asked for by the union was that, workers should be allowed to carry'tooli during working hours. w ;" . V . •■•"':''•'

TRADE DEPRESSED. The principal- and most contentious ': * clauses had 'been disposed of, continued ;. ;"\ Mr.'.'. Mount joy. -The employers, libw-j; i . ever, felt in regard to the matters left .;,.• in dispute that the Court would take; '/ fully into consideration' the effect o£j ; the present depression on trade and employment, and would not impose any; ; added; responsibilities on employera..\ which, in turn, would have to be passed on' to .persons' requiringiwork to be ■■-;.■ done.•,■ On the contrary, the Court was ; : asked' to make "provisions that would •'-■;■ tend to improve the.conditions of trada, ..., and' employment. ' ' ■/ ■' -:V ; ; In regard to suburban work,'the em? pioyers submitted that if an employer's place of business vwas within' a ; . radius of one and\'ya half ■"■:,! miles" of the. Te, Aro Post Office, all- ..work V ; performed outside that radius should1 .be considered suburban work. It was1 also urged that a similar definition should :\\ be given to work performed outside';at. : radius of one mile and a half from, the employer's place of •business, where ift ;,.; was outside a radius of brie mile and'ia/'." * half from the Te Aro,Post Office. ;Sim-: \ ilar provision was made for employers workers in any town in adistricfc 'other than Wellington.: It was suggest- 7 ' ed that the clauses would have.the. ef-:. feet of. confining the operations -of ; employees to the. districts in which they; ; were carrying on businesp, and that that would result in ajsaying to both employer and worker.1; "On the question: \ of payment from the town of engagement ': the employers considered it was unfaiij to penalises them by making it compul- " 1 sory to pay men fares and travelling time because they'chose to live in Wei- . lington.- The;contention was faii/W that it :was compulsory, to pay fares' .' and travelling time if a worker' were required to-.travel from the place of' '.' his engagement to some outside place, y " Referring to country work, Mr. Mount- ; , joy said that it had.long been a.recog-' ' ' nised rule thatwhen a worker was re-, quired to,- sleep away from home thai work should be considered .country; work. .. The^union asked for a ■: limit'to .be placed on -country ;work. That was 'considered: unreasonable,' be-' cause 'the employer, requiring• a \inan ; to work more than twenty-five, miles, from the Te, Aro Post Office would have ; to pay 5s ,2d a day in.additioh/to thak hourly wage. ■ Then,, again, workers employed. twenty-four/miles away from Wellington would not, be on country; \ work and would,not be entitled 'to th« extra rate, and would perhaps have to make their own arrangements for board y V and lodging. : The. union's claim'-; for; a(' limit of ten miles in respect of employers dutside,Wellington was also unreasonable, Mr.' ; Mountjoy contended. ■■'■ '■•- ; The employers', strongly/ protested against the claim that tpols, should: be : 1 carried during working hours; it was submitted, that, such a clause had notbeen included: in any building; trade '■ " award.' In conclusion, ; Mr.. Mountjoy l.' referred t& the employers' objection to' ' have the Hawkes Bay provincial dintrict included in the scope of the award, submitting that, apart from considera-. . tipns arising; out of Itho earthquake,! ' ! the Court should be satisfied, that the • union was representative of the workers ■ . in'Hawkes Bay.,;lfc.was contended that: ■, the union had no branch there. .; .■' BUBUEBAK WORK. J / *The, union giaimed, in' regard to euburban work, said.Mr. Broadley,.that;jt«, . '.-. members should be paid for time qccnpied in, travelling outside a' -certaial,' ,' radius, and it was therefore necessary; .'■;■; to have the position defined bo dearly; , that there could be no quibbling. The : employers were confining themselves to, 1 the cityj but such places as k Petone, . 1 Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, and Porinia iad ,to be considered. That was why, the union asked that the award should stipulate that no employer should hay» more than one place of business in anjf one industrial area. The position wa» ~- equitable in the case of, employers i'< other towns, because they had the aJv. ternativo' bfliemploying local men. - , Mr. Brbadley maintained that when f ; I worker had to travel beyond a certai* tadius to obtain employment from ;« . Wellington contractor he should be paif for his travelling' tinie and fares; o^ll the previous award it was agreed that : the Te. Aro Post Office and the respec-: tive post-offices in other towns govern- . .'- ed by the award' should be the central . points. The; claim now made that'the . employer's shop should be the central point would lead to chaos. The.union's > claims in regard to country work were ; •' for the purpose of putting an end to '■'■ long hours away from'home each day. In. regard to the.carrying of tools in!,. working hours, it was claimed that-a' worker was in continuous employment while carrying his tools from one job to ; another, and that he should either do it in his employer's time or be paidl for it. : Beferring to .the claim to • include ■ Hawkes Bay in the scope of the award, '.- Mr. Broadley said that every other building trade in operation there was ' covered by an. award, and they asked, for jurisdiction to improve the conditions of; plasterers. ■.',-. : J The Court reserved its decision. >