MILLS DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 71, 25 March 1938, Page 13

MILLS DISPUTE

<* (COURT HEARING J

CLASSIFICATION OF WORK

When the hearing of the application for a new award to cover the wages and conditions of employment of workers in New Zealand woollen mills and hosiery factories was resumed in the Arbitration Court today, it was announced that the parties had agreed upon the classification of work and workers in the woollen mills. A conference to enable the parties to discuss the matter was held after the Court adjourned yesterday afternoon and at this the agreement was reached.

Mr. James Evans (employers' representative), who made the announcement to the Court, said that the classification arrived at met with the requirements of both parties and this would simplify the Court's task very considerably. Unfortunately, although it had been possible to agree to the classification of the workers in hosiery factories, it had not been ■ possible to arrive at the exact groups into which they should be placed. It would remain for the Court to decide this point. A COMPANY'S STAFF. William E. Winks, managing director of the Manawatu Knitting ■ Mills, Ltd., from the witness-box, replied with some degree of feeling to what were described as accusations made against the company by Mr. W..--T. Young (advocate for the workers). The witness contended that Mr. young had seen fit to make a deliberate attack against his company. He resented and refuted the accusations, which, he alleged, had been placed before the Court in such a manner as to have the deliberate intention of misleading the Court. Witness dealt in particular with staff matters. In Palmerston North it was impossible to get skilled workers in the trade, he said-, and it. was necessary to employ the younger girls. If he could get them he would far rather employ experienced adult. workers and have very few of the young workers. Mr. Young, when cross-examining witness, contended that Mr., Winks had misquoted and. distorted certain of his statements. Addressing Mr. Winks, Mr.-.Cecil W. Prime (employers' representative on the Court) said,,. that the suggestion plainly was that the company discharged its older girls as soon as they got £2[ or £2* 5s per week and replaced -them with girls at 15s a week. "That is quite wrong and, it is quite wrong that such a suggestion should be made," replied the witness. "There has been nothing of that whatever. We have no, wish to do that and have never done it." Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees' representative on the Court): There are two issues: why is it you cannot get experienced workers? or on'the other hand why is it necessary to take on so many juniors to. fill their places?—We cannot get experienced workers because there is no similar work in our district. Before leaving the witnessrbox, witness asked, if it was within the jurisdiction of the Court, whether the references to the Manawatu Knitting Co. in the case for the workers, which, he submitted, had been proved incorrect, could be deleted from the records. . Mr. Justice O'Regan said he thought the witness could rest assured that anything that was not' published in the Press did not get much publicity.1 No one ever went to the Court to turn up the records to see what-was in John Hatrick, mill manager of Prestige Ltd., gave evidence as to the re->. lative values of hosiery workers. ' George Greenwood, mill manager of the Kaiapoi Woollen ' Co., was called to give "evidence as to the number of looms a tuner should be called upon to attend to. He dealt also with other branches of mill work.. When the luncheon adjournment was taken the employers had- other- evidence to call before the -completion of their case. ; '