MOTION PICTURES

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 138, 8 December 1936, Page 13

MOTION PICTURES

PROJECTIONISTS' WORK

APPLICATION FOR AWARD

Further details regarding conditions of work in projection boxes in motionpicture theatres in New Zealand were placed before the Arbitration Court today when the claim of New Zealand Federated Motion Picture Projectionists' Industrial Association of Workers for a Dominion award was continued. Mr. Raymond J. Reardon appeared for the applicants and Mr. W., J. Mountjoy, secretary of the: Wellington Employers' Association,- represented the theatre owners. '~. • Mr. Reardon called a number of witnesses to give evidence regarding, the work done by projectionists, and, Dr. P.;P. Lynch to describe the health conditions of projection boxes. Dr. Lynch said . there was a quantity, of fine flaky dust from the carbons used for lighting purposes, but he had never met a case where that dust injured health. ; He believed most of it would be arrested by the nostrils. The boxes became hot and stuffy and he considered some form of controlled ventilation would improve working conditions', ::■••■. ; Mr. Mountjoy said that much had been, made of the film tax paid in New Zealand and it had ■: been suggested that large sums of money went into the pockets of American picture corporations,'but the Court could not be expected 'to regulate the charges of overseas film companies. The employers asked-the Court to fix wages and hours for the workers on conditions ruling in New Zealand, and in keeping with the wages and hours in other industries where the work was of similar value. :. ' ■ . ■ ■ • : The workers claimed that the working conditions were unpleasant ana unhealthy, but recent tests made in the operating boxes in Wellington showed that the temperatures of the boxes were not higher th#n of a normal summer's day in Wellington. As far as fire risk was Concerned the last, report of the Department of Internal Affairs stated that only three fires occurred during the projection of films, although 410 exhibitors' licences had been issued during the year. This, he submitted, showed _ that fire risk was practically non-existent. In no case had there been injury to the public and only very minor injuries had been received by operators. PROJECTIONIST'S POSITION. It had been claimed that the entire success of the show depended on the projectionist, said Mr. Mountjoy, but it might as well be claimed that the success of a railway service depended on the drivers of the engines. The dispute before the Court was the result hi the Union's withdrawal of a previous citation which, had passed through Conciliation Council where an almost'complete agreement had been reached. In the case before the Court very little had been agreed to. The claims made by the workers were considered impossible by the employers ■ for both, country and metropolitan theatres. The suggestion: that a projectionist who worked 40 hours a week Should be paid' £8 showed little knowledge of the value of the work required. The employers did not agree that projectionists were highly skilled persons as the machinery installed in the theatres: was so designed that a very small degree of skill was required to operated];.. Mr. Mountjoy discussed former awards'in! detail and submitted that the award made for Christchurch last February gave,a good indication of the value of projectionists. That awardhad fixed wages for a-42-hour week in a I continuous theatre at £4 19s a week, and in theatres where there were not more than seven screenings in a week of 36 hours at £3 2s 6d. The employers' proposals for wages and hours followed closely the recommendations of the Conciliation Council which were withdrawn by. the union. It was considered essential that the theatres in' the three metropolitan areas should be separated from the theatres running in the other parts of the Dominion. The employers wanted provision for projectionists in Auckland; Wellington, and Dunedin; for projectionists in other towns; and the exclusion of theatres in small country towns showing three days or less.per week. , Mr. Mountjoy , submitted that the wages fixed in .previous awards were higher than those paid to skilled workmen after long periods of apprenticeship. 'The motion-picture projectionist did not lose time through wet wea-ther-or slackness of work. The employers offered a scale for assistants ranging from 15s for beginners under 17 to 40s in the fifth year, one week on full pay as annual holiday; and opposed any restriction on the employer's right to draft a projectionist -from one theatreto another, or upon the age at which a projectionist coud operate the projection machinery. • $ . (Proceeding.) «