PRODUCING GAS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 13, 15 July 1936, Page 13

PRODUCING GAS

EMPLOYEES' HOURS

NATURE OF WORK

Evidence on the nature of the work done by employees in gas works was called in the Arbitration Court today when the applications for an extension of the 40-hour week to 44 and the counter-applications .: for amendments to awards were concluded. The applications by the major gas companies of the Dominion for an extension of hours applied only to workers actually engaged in the production of gas or servicing gas appliances.

Yesterday afternoon evidence was heard from Mr.--J. Lowe, manager of the Auckland Gas Company, Mr. R. J. Dunkley, manager of the Blenheim Municipal Gasworks, and Mr. W. E. Rogers, manager of the Christchurch Gas Company. '■ '

Today evidence regarding the nature of the work done in the retort house and coal yards at Miramar was given by Messrs. James Mann, Norman Watson, and Alexander DaviSson, employees of the Wellington Gas Company. These witnesses said the plant was good, but it was stated that damping the coal in the yard would improve conditions there as some* of the men contracted throat trouble through inhaling coal dust. The .'sick benefit fund had paid out £352 t0.190 members during the last eight months. Some ©f this money had been paid to employees who had contrasted illness not due to their work ijand, in one case, because of an accident.

Mr. Roberts said the employers were i opposing a 40-hour week because it would mean employing mope men and, consequently, additional co^t. He sub-' mitted that that was the.', purpose of I the legislation: to put more workers into employment and to <,spread the earnings of industry. Men had been displaced by machinery as, under the old system, it would have taken 72 hand stokers. to do the work of the 10 men feeding the furnaces in the Wellington Gas Company's'plant. That work was hot and heavy; and while the present-day work was not so hot as the old hand stoking, it was heavier because the old system required a man to work half an hour andi then have half an hour off. (: . DUST AND FUMES. Reference had been mad? to an employee dying of consumption, but it was well known that coal-- and coke dust led to pulmonary trouble. The employers made light of the fumes the men were subjected to, but anyone who went to the works wiould smell fumes as soon as he entered, the gale. The workers could not avoid those fumes. In conclusion, Mi'. Roberts submitted that the type of •work done by employees in gas . works entitled them to first consideration when hours were being shortened. Mr. A. Wadham, who represented the Auckland workers, said that the gas companies might be. faced with opposition from power boards, but on the other hand: up-to-date ,'gas works now had an income from by-products. Apart from the sale of actual gas the Auckland Gas Company did a big trade in by-products. ' • •

Mr. Frederick Mosley, a shift worker in the retort house of the Auckland Gas Company, gave evidence regarding conditions there. It would be quite possible to work a 40-hour week in the retort house and stoke room, he said, if another four men were employed. •

.Mr. Walter Daniel Kealey, a maintenance worker for the Auckland Gas Company, detailed the requirements of maintenance work. ;

Mr. v L. Glover, who represented the Christchurch workers, submitted that the application of the 40-hour week was merely a question of ( cost, and the workers claimed that the Christchurch Gas Company was >\vell. able to pay for the extra labour.' The gas companies were not in competition with one another and were, favoured and protected by special legislation. If more workers were employed because of the recent legislation the gas companies would benefit because the workers would purchase more gas. Mr. W. J. Mountj oy submitted that the evidence placed before the Court proved that longer hours were necessary in gas works than in most other industries. The reduction of hours from 56 in. some works and 48 in others to 44 was reasonable. He submitted that the awards in force showed that the industry could not' be controlled in a satisfactory manner by a strict, interpretation of the Factories Act. '■...'■

Decision was reserved.