REPLY TO COMMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 7, 8 July 1940, Page 9

REPLY TO COMMENT

RESTORATION OF STATUS

UNION'S CLAIM

A reply to statements made by Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, secretary of the Wellington Employers' Association, regarding award provisions was given today by Mr H. J. Sweeney, secretary of the Wellington United Warehouse and Bulk Store Employees' Union, as follows:— "In last Friday's 'Evening Post Mr. Mountjoy expressed his concern that the members of several unions of workers had recently been granted increases in wages by the Court of Arbitration. In making this reply, I am concerning myself only with two awards mentioned, namely, the storemen and packers' award and the oil workers' award, for the reason that these two awards are administered by the Wellington United Warehouse and Bulk Store Employees' Union. The unions which administer the other awards mentioned are well able to speal^ for themselves, if they consider it necessary. "In respect to our two awards, the Court made it clear in its memoranda that it was not granting increases at all in the ordinary sense of the word. It indicated rather that the new rates ..were to restore to the workers under these awards thief same status in comparison to other workers as they held prior to 1937. In support of this statement we append herewith the Court's memorandum covering each award: — STOREMEN AND PACKERS. ~.. "Tor a period of at least 15 years from 1922 to 1937, the Court recogjnised that the functions of storemen and packers were of a semi-skilled nature, and made awards allowing to ■these workers when employed casually rates from 2£d to 3d per hour over "and above the casual rate for general labourers. In 1938 the casual rate for Vtoremen and packers was fixed at 2s 4d per hour, or the same figure as was fixed for unskilled labour in the Court's pronouncement of 1937. The rates in the 1937 pronouncement were indicated to be standard hourly rates for casual workers who may lose time because of weather conditions, short jpbs, or changing from one job to an"other. A casual storeman would lose 'appreciably less time because of weather conditions than some other occupations, but his earnings would no "doubt be affected by short jobs and changing from one job to another to a degree more or less common to many casual workers. A majority of the -Court concurs in the view that the wjork of storemen and packers is of a semi-skilled nature, and is of the opinion, therefore, that a margin between casual rates for these workers and the general unskilled rate should be reestablished. It is considered that after thte effect of weather conditions on storemen's work has been taken into account an adequate margin would be 2d per hour, making the casual rate for storemen and packers 2s 6d per hopr. ■■• 'The weekly rates have also been adjusted on a semi-skilled basis. Mr. Prime does not concur in the decision of the majority of the Court, and his 'dissenting opinion is attached.' OIL STORE WORKERS. ■ "In regard to oil store workers, the Courts' memorandum read: "'Today the Court issued an award covering the employment of storemen and packers. In 1926 there was a margin of Id per hour between the casual rate for a storeman and packer and the casual rate for an oil store employee, while in 1935 the margin was a halfpenny per hour. On both occasions the margin was in favour of the oil store employees. In 1938s however, the margin was increased to 2d per hour, the respective rates being 2s 4d and 2s 6d per hour. The Court has brought the casual rate for storemen and packers up to 2s 6d per hour, and a majority of the Court is of the' opinion that a small margin in favour of oil store employees should be retained. The casual rate has, therefore, been increased to 2s 6Jd per hour, and the weekly rates have also been increased to maintain the relative position of weekly workers under this award as compared with the ordinary storemen and packers. " 'Mr. Prime does not agree with the decision of tine majority of the Court, and his dissenting opinion is attached.' "Ever siiSce the making of the two previous awards, which came into operation in January, 1938," said Mr. Sweeney* "we have continually put forward four contention that status had been lost, and that we had not been given fafir relative treatment, in accordance with the provisions of the 1937 pronouncement. "This aspect of the matter has been stated in Conciliation Council, and in the Arbitration Court in Mr. Mountjoy's presence, and we think he might well halve referred to it when making his statement. Otherwise, he is actually telling only half the story. We are concerned that the rates recently \ awarded to the oil workers and store- . men and packers are the rates which ; should have been awarded to them ( in January, 1938, to allow them to maintain their position. This seems to be \ clearly understood by employers gener- , ally, and we have not heard even one complaint from them individually. Indeed, those employers of workers under these two awards who study the issue of awards by the Court closely will know that they are actually in pocket, because the ;adjustment of these workers' wages has been so long deferred."