PRINTING TRADES

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

PRINTING TRADES

WEEKLY HOURS

DISCUSSION CONTINUED

An adjourned meeting of the Conciliation Council was held today to hear the ; New Zealand Printing and Related Trades industrial dispute. The appellants were the Printing Trade Federation of Workers and the respondents were the Master Printers' Federation and Newspaper Proprietors.

Mr. S. Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, presided. The appellants were represented by Messi-s. C. H. Chapman, M.P., K. McL. Baxter (secretary and agent), J. Mclnnarney, W. A. D. Groves, E. J. Patton, P. Truscott, F. J. McCallum, and S. Anderson. The respondents were represented by Messrs. J. M. Hardcastle, H. Harris, A. Dennison, H. Palamountain, R. Dillon, H. E. Bell, 8.,.C. Jacobs, and E. W. Clarkson (agent).

The previous hearing was held on June 25, and the proceedings were adjourned pending the decision of the Arbitration Court in regard to the question of hours. On August 26 the Court decided that the weekly hours should be the same as in the present award, namely, typographers 42 hours and other sections of the industry 44 hours weekly. Some of the minor issues were tentatively agreed to pending the decision referred to. Mr. Chapman said the decision of the Court was entirely unexpected as far as the employees were.concerned — in fact, he might say that it was unexpected by 100 per cent, of the workers. He thought more progress would be made at the present sitting if the parties first discussed the 40-hour week. Exemption had been given by the Court to certain employers, and there were further claims for exemption.. He did not think that any progress would be made while the position remained as it was in respect to' weekly Hours/ REMARKS REGRETTED. Mr. Clarkson said the assessors for the employers regretted the remarks which had been made by Mr. Chapman. At the closing session of the council on June 29 a list of the matters deferred for further consideration was handed to the Commissioner. It comprised the maximum hours per week, the rate of wages, the question of classification, 'the. rate' •of overtime (after three hours), rate of wages for operatormechanics, the spread of hours and tha night allowance, and the. Anniversary Day holiday. The assessors on both sides contemplated a speedy settlement of these questions as soon as the Court gave its judgment in regard to hours, and that intention should not be prejudiced by the delay in resuming the proceedings. The reference of the hours question only to the Court, and the interruption of the negotiations in conciliation were the direct consequence of the Government's legislation. The Conciliation Council must therefore be" guided by principles expounded •by the Government and incorporated in its legislation. "A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING." There was no doubt that both parties in this case went.to the Court upon a clear understanding that its decision would be accepted. The Court's judgment in regard to the printing industry was determined by evidence regarding the practical ■ difficulties of reducing hours, especially in the production of newspapers, and by evidence showing that the industry generally could not bear the extra cost which such a reduction would involve. The latest official statistics of the industry had been fully discussed. They related to 1934-35. Since then the industry had been paying wages at the higher rates introduced last year. In addition to having to pay higher wages and allow more holidays, the industry was faced with, greatly-increased costs in other directions. Taxation' had been drastically increased. The prices of raw materials were rising. The situation confronting the printing industry was therefore very, far from favourable, and it was idle for the workers to suppose that any increase in wages beyond that secured under the Finance Act could be given. Employers were endeavouring to pay the 1931 wages, but there was already evidence that in some cases that would be impossible.

The Conciliation Commissioner asked Mr. Baxter for his arguments in favour of a 40-hour week. Mr. Baxter replied that' he understood that a number of offices were working a 40-hour week. Mr. Chapman said he could not see that it was impracticable to work a 40-hour week. ■ After considerable discussion, the council adjourned until the afternoon in order that a suggestion made by Mr. Chapman that the 40-hour week should operate as from a certain date in the future could be considered in the meantime. . .