NEW AWARD

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 79, 30 September 1936, Page 13

NEW AWARD

BAKERS' CLAIMS

WITHDRAWAL QUESTION

CASE BEFORE COURT

After hearing further argument yesterday afternoon on the question of whether the New Zealand Federated Bakers' Association of Workers should be permitted to withdraw its application to the Court of Arbitration for a new award, the Court suggested that the parties should abide by the agreement reached in conciliation council with the exception of the daily hours of work, which could be referred to the Court. The Court adjourned to enable the parties to confer and when the hearing was resumed today it was stated on behalf of tne master bakers that an agreement had been reached to adopt the course recommended with certain minor amendments to several clauses, principally involving an alteration to the wording. ..

Mr. Justice Page presided. Mr. E. J. Watson, secretary of the New Zealand Federated Bakers' Association of Workers, appeared for the workers, and Mr. T. O. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Employers' Federation, for the master bakers. "A REAL DISPUTE." Replying yesterday afternoon on behalf of the employers to the argument of Mr. Watson in support of his application for- withdrawal of the claims, Mr. Bishop contended that Mr. Watson had introduced irrelevant matters into his statement which had no bearing on the question of whether the workers Had the power to withdraw the dispute. Mr. Watson, however, had made one relevant and very1 valuable statement. Mr. Watson had said that "away back in February there was a lot of controversy about the wages the workers should receive. There were deputations to the. Minister, writing to the Minister, etc., and the Hon. Mr. Sullivan convened a conference on wages on April 2. No agreement was reached at that conference; in fact the conference was. an utter failure." That statement, continued Mr. Bishop, appeared to him to show that in the industry of bread-making a dispute was in existence prior to any steps being taken by the union to refer the dispute to a "council of conciliation. In this case there was no technical dispute created as was usually necessary. There was in actual fact a real dispute. He submitted that that dispute was now before the Court and that it could not Ibe removed at Mr. Watson's request. The employers had been rather accused of false pretences. The increase in the price of bread, however, was fully justified after the increase to the 1931 rates of remuneration, apart altogether from any other matters. His* Honour: Assuming for the moment, without expressing any opinion, that we find that an application of this sort cannot be withdrawn, what ground do you say should be taken up before the Court—that the whole issue should be opened?—We do not seek to raise anything but the clauses I have mentioned, sir. I aont know that the union would . . . BARGAINS SHOULD BE KEPT. After the Court had adjourned to consider the position, his Honour, indicating the views of the Court, said that the facts seemed not to be in dispute. A conciliation council was convened and the parties arrived at what they believed to be ,a, complete settlement. When it came.to draft the terms of this it was admitted that there had been a misunderstanding in respect to one clause. The parties had not since been able to settle their differences and the matter had reached the Court. Agreements reached in conciliation council, he had no doubt, were frequently the subject of criticism by one side or the other after they had been reached. The Court thought that such agreements should be adhered to, and if the agreement in this instance was adhered to the only point the parties would want to refer to the Court was the one point on which there had been a misunderstanding.

That was the question as to whether the day's work was to be eight hours or ten hours. The Court's view on the merits of the whole matter was that the parties should agree to refer this point only to the Court. The Court had been told that the assessors for the employers had been criticised for the bargain they had made, but after all it was a bargain, and it was desirable that these, bargains should be carried out. The Court, therefore, put this view to the parties and asked them to consider whether it was practicable to limit the issue as suggested. If the parties said they were unable to do that, the Court would have to consider the application for a withdrawal of the proceedings. It was a legal question, not without difficulty, and the Court was quite unable to give a decision without first examining and considering the various authorities and: judgments that had been quoted.

Today Mr. Bishop said he was happy to be able to report a successful discussion. It had been mutually agreed to accept the recommendations which were almost completed in conciliation council in August and that an award on these recommendations be made for a period of six months, the daily hours to be decided by the Court and certain minor amendments to the wording of several clauses to be made. These alterations Mr. Bishop outlined. lIOUKS OF WORK. On the hours question. Mr. Watson contended that there was no reason why a baker should have to work more than eight hours per day. The workers mainly relied on legislation for the fact that no more than eight hours should be included in the award. A baker had more inconvenient hours than the majority of tradesmen. In many cases he had to work two shifts, starting early in the morning and going back in the afternoon to make dough. Mr. Bishop said that all the master bakers sought was the right to work their employees up to ten hours without payment of overtime on one day of the week, the total hours for the other days of the week to be 34, the weekly hours thus being 44. | WEEKEND DEMAND. Albert James Clegg, managing director of Denhard Bakeries, Ltd., Wellington. Frank Hester Hawker, managing director of Stacey and Hawker, bakers. Christchurch, and John Osmond BoniI face, of Palmerston North, president jof I he New Zealand Master Bakers' Federation, gave evidence that to produce the bread required on a Saturday for the weekend a ten-hour day was absolutely essential.

In reply to Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative on the Court), Mr. Hawker said that the ten hours could not be reduced by employing more men and "staggering" the starting times differently. What governed the situation was the oven output.

In reply to Mr. Justice Page, witness said that irrespective of whether the award specified a lesser number of hours, it would be necessary to work the men ten hours on the long night. It was quite impractical to do otherwise.

To Mr. Watson, Mr. Boniface said that if the industry were tied down to an eight-hour day it would be impossible to carry on.

Mr. Watson said that the workers were not asking that. The employers generally wanted the men to bake two

days' bread on one day and not pay them anything for the extra time worked.

Mr. Boniface said that all the master bakers wanted was the privilege of spreading the work with the right of working ten.hours on one day. That was fair when account was taken of the fact that on some days of the week the men did not always work their full time, perhcips only as much as four hours.

(Proceeding.)