TRAMWAYMEN

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 2, 2 July 1938, Page 16

TRAMWAYMEN

WAGES DEMANDS

REPLY OF COUNCIL

INCREASE IN FARES?

xne statement mat snuuia any o-v preciable increase take place in present wages to tramway employees, the ■ Wellington City Council would have no alternative but to raise tramfares, was made by Mr. L. B. Hutton, advocate for the council, in the Second Court of Arbitration yesterday afternoon, when the hearing of the dispute between the council and the Wellington City Tramways and Power House Employees' and Municipal Omnibus Drivers' Union was concluded. Mr. Justice Hunter presided, and with him were Messrs. A. W. Croskery (workers' representative}, and ,V. Duff (employers' representative).

Mr. W. N. Broadley, with him Mr. D. J. King, appeared for the applicant union. The morning was occupied with the hearing of witnesses for the union.

In his address, Mr. Hutton stated that at the conciliation council proceedings all technical matters regarding rosters and so forth were thoroughly thrashed out and finalised because the council realised that such were largely a matter of management and internal economy. A man joined thej service with a full knowledge of what { was before him, and this should be j appreciated by the Court. There were two main considerations governing the! dispute, namely, what it was that con-! stituted a fair and just remuneration J for services rendered, and the capacity of the undertaking l& pay such remuneration while still maintaining financial stability. A NORMAL CONDITION. Regarding the question of weekly earnings, it was necessary to find a basis on. which to form an opinion. Comparisons were not sound unless the differences were taken into account. Tramway operations extended over 18 hours a day, with 10 hours on Sunday. It was necessary to arrange duties so that a part of the cycle represented overtime. This meant that overtime was a normal, condition of employment, whereas in other industries it was abnormal. He quoted a long table of hourly and weekly rates for men in various branches of employment, based on an analysis of wages sheets for the week ended November 7, 1937, and submitted that the table showed that, tramway employees were very reasonably treated in the matter of wages when compared with tradesmen. The table showed, among others, the following average weekly wages:—Carpenters, £5 12s 6d; electricians, £5 6s 8d; motor drivers, £5 3s 4d and £5 6s 8d; motormen, after first year, £5 18s; conductors, first year, £5 11s 5d to £5 15s after five years; assistant linesmen employed as tower wagon drivers, £5 15s 4d; emergency linesmen, £6 2s 3d; motor bus drivers, £6 0s lOd; car examiners, £6 13s 4d. Mr. Hutton said that the conclusion could not be escaped that unskilled and semi-skill-ed tramwaymen were accorded the utmost consideration in the matter of wages. Points to be borne in mind were that the employment was regular, that free transport was provided,' that uniforms were provided for motormen and conductors, that a working overcoat and hat was provided every three years, and that the council, subsidised the sick benefit and death levy funds. In travelling and clothes alone there was an extra lid per hour. BALANCING LIVING COSTS. An Arbitration Court pronouncement indicated a sum of 5s wekly to meet the increased cost of living. Such an increase represented l£d per hour on a 40-hour basis. In the tramway industry, such an hourly increase would represent considerably more than 5s per .week. An increase of one penny per hour would suffice. The union was asking the Court to make it mandatory on the council to select a certain number from the 130,000 citizens and provide them with free transport at any time anywhere on the tramway system. This privilege applied only when actually employed. The union asked for double rates of pay for Sunday work, though in awards generally double rates were imposed as a penalty. The council had no choice as to whether or not the services on Sunday could be discontinued. A motorman received 4s lOd per hour for Sunday work, which was uneconomical and unsound. An increase in the ordinary time rate, with double time for Sunday work, would render the present Sunday time-table well-nigh impossible. The' council asked for the payment of time-and-a-half rates. Prior to the industrial legislation of 1936 the loss on Sunday operation amounted to £3000 per annum, but it was now £7000 per annum. Despite this loss, Sunday revenue had increased by £3000 per annum. The loss was entirely due to the fact that the wages of conductors and motormen on Sunday had increased by £7000 per annum. He quoted a revenue and expenditure account for Sunday work showing an increase of wages from £10,763 to £17.472. and an increase in the debit balance from £3119 to £6696. He heM that as a power house was a registered factory, the rates of pay to employees were provided for under Orders in Council. The union claims were in conflict with the legislation governing the point. HOLIDAY MATTERS. The award provided that employees required to work on public and statutory holidays should receive a holiday 12 consecutive days every nine months; and that employees not so required should receive seven consecutive days' holiday on full pay. Thus ! employees in the first class were com- j pensated by being allowed nine days' holiday a year more than the others. Payment of double rates for work done on six public holidays would cost the department £4082 per annum. He went on to deal with the cltfens lor extra pay for the blowing out of motor-fields. The actual time taken in this operation was only ten minutes or so. During the year 1937-1938, 114 motors were cleaned in the running shed, and 186 motors were cleaned in the workshops. The claim for Is 6d extra per shift for men using concrete breakers was not justified, and the extra payment should be on an hourly basis. Mr. Hutton then dealt with the claims regarding extra pay for thermit welding, the use of tar, dirty work, the washing down of buses, maintenance and odd work, and night work. The claim for a minimum payment of four hours' pay for men required to stand by was unfair, and the employers offered two hours' pay at overtime rates. He then replied to the claims for leading firemen required to look after water, and for extra wages for handymen and portable crane drivers. DEPARTMENT'S POSITION. A burden of over £50,000 per annum was imposed on the tramways in additional wages and costs alone by the legislation of 1936. The year ended March 31, 1936, closed with a credit balance of £10,536, but had the statutory provision for renewal fund been paid, there would have been a debit

balance of £14,033. This renewal payment should have been £24,569, and special statutory authority had to be obtained to exempt the department from the obligation. Increased operating charges had to be met out of revenues. The reserve fund of the department was earmarked for capital works to be proceeded with in the near future. Reserves were poor, and could only be applied in the matter prescribed by the Act. The policy of the department had always been to afford the maximum service to the public at the lowest possible fare. Should any appreciable increase in the present costs eventuate, there would be no alternative but to increase tramfares. The value.of the community service controlled by the tramways authorities could be indicated by the facts that the total working expenses of the department amounted to £349,000 per annum, and that of this £277,000 represented wages costs. This meant that for every £100 expended, £79 was distributed in wages. An enterprise which distributed such a huge sum in wages annually was entitled to some protection from attacks on its financial stability. The claim for greatly increased wages would undermine the sound financial structure built up during 33 years of administration, and would react upon the wellbeing of the employees. HUGE WAGES BILL. Out of an income of £438,000, 64 per cent, was distributed in wages, j The claims of the union, were quite | beyond the ability of the department to pay. Prior to 1936, the total wages j bill amounted to £225,000, so that the] legislation had meant an increase of I £52,000 per annum, or 23 per cent. The demands of the union represented on the wages schedule alone an additional £40,000 per annum. A further £4500 per annum represented overtime claims, and the cost involved in the whole of the demands would be | £45,000 per annum. As regards the delay in settlement, the department had adopted no "stone-j walling" policy. It took two to make !an agreement, and the council con-! sidered the union's claims too high. Offers had been .made, but neither the | officers nor the council could take the responsibility of making an offer that would be beyond the capacity, of the undertaking to pay. :. Mr. L. J. Norton-Taylor; accountant | in the electricity^: department, who ■assisted Mr. Huttbn with the compilaj tion of material for his case, then gave i evidence as regards the figures produced to the Court. In reply to a question by Mr. Croskery, witness said that last year the electricity department made a profit of £14,000. This year concessions amounting to £20,000 had been made to consumers. It was forbidden under the Statute to hand over any of these profits to the tramways department/ :

Another witrie&i was heard, after which Mr. Hutton concluded his case with a ft.v remarks. The Court then adjourned.; Mr. Broadley was given permission to submit his reply in writing. ; ,