FORTY-HOUR WEEK

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

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

CLAIM BEFORE COURT

SHIPWRIGHTS AND BOATBUILDERS ~:,■: ;:v

When the shipwrights and boatbuilders in the Auckland, Wellington, and Otago industrial districts asked for a new. award in the Arbitration Court today, a claim for a 40-hour week was the main.point argued. The 40-hour week was not granted to the industry in ' the Wellington district when application was made in August, 1936, but the applicants submitted that changed condition's justified the . reopening of the question. The application for the award was heard by Mr." Justice Hunter, with whom Mr. W. E: Anderson (employers' representative) and Mr. A. H. Croskery'' (workers' representative) were associated.

Mr. F. P.'Walsh appeared for the applicants, and the employers were-re-presented by .Mr. G. H. Norman. Mr. W. J. Mount joy appeared, to make certain ■■ requests on behalf of the Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. -Mount-joy, said that application had been made in conciliation council for the Wellington .Harbour, Board to be allowed to pay wages on the usual day observed. -, '■: ' ' Mr. Walsh said he did not raise any objection to that. "Mr. Mountjoy said similar provisions were asked lor in relation to holidays-. The Harbour Board wanted to observe its regulation holidays but if more holidays were granted by the award they would be allowed. . : Mr. M'ountjoy also asked that the Harbour Board should not be bound by the.award in respect of casual labour employed docking or undocking vessels' on the Harbour Board'sfloating dock. . - ' . ' Mr. Walsh said the holiday, claims were- almost identical. The Harbour Board allowed the ■ waterside workers' picnic- day and not January 2. The shipwrights were asking for. January 2 and not the picnic'day. '.'■., As far as- docking was concerned, said Mr. Walsh, it had been agreed in conciliation council that' slipping and unslipping, ■docking, and undocking should be done by shipwrights assist-, ed by-labourers. ' Mr. Mquntjoy said that was what he was asking for, but there was some doubt as to whether; the men were shipwrights or carpenters. Mr. Croskery said the carpenters. were governed by their own award and could not enter into the question. , Later Sir. Mountjoy called evidence to/ show that the men employed by the Wellington Harbour Board at the dock were wharf carpenters "and not shipwrights. If the'award required'the employment of" shipwrights the . Harbour Board would not be-able to supply them." Mr. Mountjoy suggested a pro-' visb to permit the Harbour Board to employ carpenters at the dock. CASE FOR APPLICANTS. Mr. Walsh said the New Zealand Federated Shipwrights' '• ■■ and Boatbuilders' Industrial -Association- of Workers were asking for an1 award covering the. Auckland district, including Gisborne, and the Wellington and Otago districts. - The parties'r.had not-agreed---on-hours or wages.- In addition'there was only partial agreement regarding" overtime, meals' and mealtimes, suburban work, holidays, and other minor matters. ■'"">'. ■ -: The parties appeared to be furthest apart: oh the question of hours, he said. The Court had'refused to amend the Wellington 'award in August, 1936, but he submitted that during the.time elapsed since then' conditions had so changed that the question of applying the 40-hour week should be reconsidered. Industry and" commerce _ were now ■ more prosperous and the industry was in a position to meet added expense; 'the' industry generally had •progressed' towards the final adoption of the 40-hpur weak; many of. the employers had introduced the 40-hour week, and the spread of the 40-hour week in industry justified the shipwrights and boatbuilders in their renewed request for hours similar to those enjoyed by the majority of their fellow-workers. ■ Mr. Walsh went on. to argue that a 40-tioiir' week was not impracticable, and consequently must be applied in accordance with the requirements of the Act. ' . • ■ ■ ' '~„,. Gn the question of wages, Mr. Walsh said there was an agreement that any increases made for seagoing shipwrights would' be retrospective for approximately twelve months. . Mr Walsh called evidence to show that Saturday work was not general in the shipwrights' trade.; -

(Proceeding.)