MILL WORK

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 70, 24 March 1938, Page 11

MILL WORK

ITS CLASSIFICATION

EMPLOYEES' DEMANDS

CASE FOR NEW AWARD

Further evidence was given in the Court of Arbitration today in support of .'various branches, of the workers' case for a new ' Dominion award to cover wages and Conditions of employmerit ' in' New" Zealand woollen mills and hosiery factories. Witnesses were called to describe the classes of work performed and to detail the degrees of experience arid skill required:

Mr. Justice G'Regan observed that it appeared lthat one of the problems the Court- would have to wrestle withwould be in respect to classification. The ■ case for the workers embodied a very detailed, classification. ; In reply to his Honour,' one of the witnesses;' Edward C. Harper, a warper employed at the Kaiapoi Woollen Mills and secretary of the Canterbury union, said, that the objective was not the classification of the man but of the work. He referred to instances of men on low-skilled work being transferred to jobs requiring more skill. The workers did not wish to leave loopholes for employers to do this without an increase in pay. His Honour asked'whether it would be possible for the parties to agree to a simplified classification. Witness said that had been attempted in the amended classification put into the Court. The workers would be quite willing to meet the other side on the classification issue. In the counter-classification there were some points of-agreement. ■'■ -■ CHANGES OF WORK. " Wheri he was in the witness-box William Thomas Young, advocate for the workers^'and secretary of the Wellington district.union,'said tha'ttohis know-ledge-th'e'r'6 were, workers 'who had been" employed .af the ..lowest grade: of wage under the schedule of the award and in two or three weeks', time had been put on' to do 'higher-grade work "carrying with it under the award higher pay, but the lower grade of pay had. been continued! Witness added that'he would quote two cases to the Court. 'He felt that he could weary the Court with the. records on this matter. " 'From information he had from other places it" would appear that matters of this character-we're--much worse and greater than they, were'in the Wellington area. ■-.- • ■ . .. . "I think it is highly-essential,' Mr. Young added, "in the interests of the employers themselves to guard against unfair competition amongst them, as well as in the interests of the workers that each classification we have specified should be clearly stated .in .the award, whether grouped 'or, not,, and the wages payable set' against it." Mr. Young also said he thought that while an employer should be quite free to make' changes, the union should be notified : Of r'the- charige's: Mr.:;A.'"S'.'Cooks6ri, on behjilf. of the employer's!--pointed out that» the employers di'd'rib't recognise, some of the classes' dfi-w'o'rk dh- the .employees' -classification:'-"* He :> contended.-that the employers'- were '"being denied the right to classify"ttieir employees.- ' ■.- .- Mr. Cookso.rr asked Mr. Young whyhe should* 'object "to an interchange- of worker's,-- "wh<y-though"-differently designated, -were receiving -theY same ( wages?" -'""" ■•v"'- '*"'"-■'■■'< '"•"' '■'" .'■-■•

Mr. Young 1 said that -What1 the- employees asked was'that when a change in classification was made necessitating a .change in.the rate of pay the union should be'notified.

Mr. Cooksori contended that there was no justification for Mr. Young making the . sweeping ' statements he had against employers ■ when he had produced only two isolated cases. . Mr. Young: You wouldn't be satisfied if I produced fifty. , • ■ ■. -IN SLACK ■ TIMES. . '. ■ ■ ; Mr. .'.James Evans, representing the employers, suggested to Mr. Young that the union surely would not: object to a weaver,' in times of slackness in the: weaving department, being asked j to do lower-paid work if the alternative was'that the weaver-would have to stand'down and lose a week's pay. I

Mr. Young said that all that-was wanted-was that when •a ■ worker was put on to other work carrying with it an alteration'in pay the union should be notified. .' . .-• .

Mr.W.'W. Batch elor, workers' representative, said ■ that the employees objected- to a lower-paid man being put on to do higher-paid work without added remuneration.

His Honour said he did not think the matter need be pursued further. He asked' Mr. Young whether he could not have notified the Labour Department in respect to the cases he had quoted.

Mr; Young said 'that could have been done, but it had always been his policy not. to use the law until all other measures were exhausted.

Mr. Young's evidence completed the case for the employees. This afternoon Mr. Cobkson was to make a start with the presentation of the employers' case. ' '.. ' •