GAS INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 80, 5 April 1938, Page 13

GAS INDUSTRY

DOMINION AWARD

DISPUTE BEFORE COURT

EMPLOYERS' CASE

Evidence in support of the application by the ,New Zealand Gasworks Employees' Union for a Dominion award was given in, the Court of Arbitration, yesterday afternoon and again this morning, after which a start was made.with the case for the employers. The principal matters in dispute arc wages and hours. '~..'

Mr, -. Justice. O'Regan presided, and with. ;his Honour were Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative) and Mr. A. L. Monteith (workers* repre-

sentative)

Mr. J. Roberts appeared for the workers, and Mr. W- E. Anderson for the employers.

ANOTHER OBJECTION.

Before: the taking of evidence resumed Mr. P. M.'Butler asked to be allowed to make a request to the Court. He said he had been.unable to attend yesterday when objections were heard from other trade unions to, their members, being coveredby the gas workers' award. ■. V '.':■'.':.■■.. '''■':■ /-•■;.■'■ •;■'','

Mr. Roberts, objected to Mr. Butler intervening at,this stage.-; "if we are going to -continue to have people coming along here with objections it is going to be a case of: Kathleen Mavpurneeh—it mayx be for; years or'if may be ever," he said,, >Mr.-.Butler should; have come down here* yester-, day-morning." . v "- '•' ' •"■ '■ Mr. Butler asked that it should be made clear that" nothing 'in> the gas workers', award ~. should ~ apply, to general labourers! ? ■■~ : ; >"..}:■ It the Court did as Mr. Butler suggested, said Mr. Roberts, the parties might as well leave the court. The trouble was that the objectors did not understand the gas industry; A .man niight be doing servicing work; for, twp and a half hours arid then be back in the yard doing another job. The work-; ers' representatives and the employers' representatives had met and agreed upon an industrial classification to include those they considered should properly come under the award. If the Court did what some of the objectors asked it would increase fourfold the number of men required to do a job. Mr. Butler: We want the award restricted to the production of gas. Mr. Anderson said he supported the views of Mr. Roberts. In this case it seemed to him that an industry union had been formed. The employers' and workers' representatives had agreed on the list of workers they considered should be properly in the union and he thought that an industry award must prevail over vocational awards. His Honour said he thought there was no doubt about the legal position, but whether that position applied depended upon- the facts. The court could not make an award to conflict with another award. If men were bound by other awards, then the position could not be changed until the award by which they were bound expired. Mr. Roberts: That would be never, your Honour. , > ' His Honour s,aid that the Court would consider, the representations in the light of the legal -position when framing the award. EMPLOYERS 'CASE.

Mr, 1 Anderson saia he did'not wish to^address- the Court at, any; length but merely to make cl&»f. .the clauses in dispute and indicate the employers' reasons for ■ opposing, them.;.. The employers rwould 'give evidence, on all these clauses. V ■.' -. :V. *j The' first clause in dispute related to hours of work.-. The employers asked for the renewal of "the Court's order of 1936. This provided, for a 40-hour week, except for yardmen and drivers engaged in receiving, trimming, bunkering, or: Handling coal or ashes, and complaints men. The; employers now also1 desired men: handling coke to be brought within this .exception. It was submitted that.the onus y/as'on the union to show that conditions had so changed that it was possible for, the men concerned to.be: worked a 40-hour week.. The reason for the application to include coke workers was, that the bunkers •in boiler houses and .watergas plants were not big enough to hold sufficient coal to carry the plant on from Friday night until Monday mprning

The next objection by the employers was the 'union's application for an extra payment of 12s 6d for complaints men required to work a shift on Saturday afternoon. There must be complaints men on duty; on Saturday afternoons. Although the ■ employers were opposed to the union's demand of 12s 6d ( , they were, prepared to pay 8s 6d extra. .

Mr. Anderson next dealt-with the classification of. the workers agreed upon by the parties. He pointed out that there was some difference of opinion on the wording in some instances.

WAGES ISSUE.

Mr. Anderson, dealt with the wages issue with the workers divided into four general classes, namely, shift 1 workers, skilled workers, semi-skilled workers, and unskilled workers. The shift workers,- he submitted, with, the exception of engine-drivers, required no lengthy training. They were really workers who gained some experience, as they went along. Prior ■to 1936 their hours varied throughout the "country: in some cases they worked 48 hours and in others 56 hours. .He submitted that in the calculation of the wages of these workers they were treated first of all as unskilled .workers; something was added because they had to take their turn on weekend shifts and also for work on public holidays, and, second, because in-two weeks out of three they worked at night. ■ Then it was submitted something more was added because of the nature of their work. When the Factories Act came into force, their hours were reduced to 40, but the Act went-on to say that their weekly earnings were to be maintained. , The effect of this provision was to increase wages by 56-40ths and in the majority of cases by 48-40ths per shift. Provision was also made for. half-rates extra to be paid for Saturday, afternoons, Sunday's, and public holidays. He submitted that the 'employers were quite entitled to ask the Court to.assess the wages for shift workers on the following, basis:— Si-rt with £4 8s 4d, then add a 3s allowance lor shift work, plus another

'-h for the nature of the work perf-'■■-, ;-d. making a total of £4 14s 4d, or a d-ily rate per shift in a five-day v '■■: 'A ISs 6d, plus another 2s per r'r.'i'. on lha average on account of

H ,". 'C~y, Sunday, and. holiday pay^ r:;;-,;,". The most liberal basis the eniplcyers could trke would be to start at PA 13s 4 rl plus a" night shift allowance of Is 6d par shift (5s per wesk), plus 5s for ■'. ha warm aature of the work,.giving, a total of £5 3s 4d, which for a five-day week made the daily rate per chift 20s Bd. In this case the ejetra payment per shift for Saturday -afternoon work, Saturday and holiday work was 2s 2d per shift. Dealing next- with engine-drivers,

Mr. Anderson said they were semi

skilled. The power plant in a gas j works was not large and the engine- j drivers employed had no more re-! sponsibility than the engine-drivers employed in the gold-mining industry, j dairy industry, or sawmilling industry. , Four engine-drivers' awards had been made \>y the Court recently and . it was submitted by the employers ' that the wages given in these were the proper basis for the Court to follow , for engine-drivers in gas works.