ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 152, 30 June 1938, Page 25

ARBITRATION COURT

THE FISH WORKERS

DECISION RESERVED

The hearing of the Industrial dispute between the Wellington Fish Workers' Union and the employers was concluded before the Second Court of Arbitration yesterday afternoon. The decision of the Court was reserved. . Mr. Justice Hunter presided, and with him were Messrs. V. Duff (employers' representative) ' and A. W. Croskery (workers' representative). Mr. H. J. Bishop appeared for the employers and Mr. F. P. Walsh for the workers.

Mr. Bishop said that the Court had Already made a pronouncement as regards wages, and should not go past it. He dealt with the claim of the foreman to be governed by the award. He quoted a precedent in a 1937 award wheM foremen and other officials were exempted. The foreman was largely responsible for the control of the work, and the employers did not believe that it was wise for him to be governed by the same award as controlled the men over whom he had charge. The wage of £6 10s paid to a foreman wa* sufficient safeguard.

The employers agreed that the pretent wage scale should not be reduced. It had been stated that certain hands received £5 10s ait present, but this -Was not fair to be taken as a standard, as the men in question had 30 years' experience of the work. Speaking of the youth clause, it was true that no special advantage had been taken . of the present ! clause. Youths had been employed from time to time. It was a question of principle. The employers did not wish to take particular advantage of the employment of youths, but any avenue offering for the employment of boys should be left,open.

The , employers had agreed to the payment of time and a half for the first three hours of overtime, and thereafter double-time rates. They wished to appose the payment of extra money for/starting workbefore 7 a.m. • Much sorting and loading work was carried out early in the morning. What the /Employers objected to most in the holiday clause was that a four-hour minimum should be paid for in the case of men , asked ,to work on Sundays and holiday*. Mr. Bishop contended that the work was not so bad as had been made out. The employers did not consider that it was a fair thing to ask them to suppljMprons and clogs. Orders were received late, and it was necessary for met to be employed early to fill them. It was quite true that the overnight fas! of the cooler did not affect the marketable quality of the fish. Sir. Walsh criticised Mr. Bishop's at; titude regarding the Court's power' to reduce hours. He submitted that the onujp was on the employers to prove that a 40-hour, five-day week was impracticable. The employers had called nd|evidencie on this subject, though they should have been in a position to do so. He quoted other awards: in this connection. The industry could be,so regulated as to preclude the^'necessity of Workers starting before 7; a.m.