THE PRINTING TRADES AWARD.

Evening Star, Issue 17483, 14 October 1920, Page 7

THE PRINTING TRADES AWARD.

10 THE EDIXOE. Sir, —In to-day’s paper you publish a statement by Mr F. Pirani, secretary of the Wellington. Master Printers’ Association. giving the reason why the employers are holding back payments awarded bv~the Arbitration Court. As this affects the local members of the Typographical Union, and also the members of the Printers Machinists, Bookbinders, Lithographers, and Related Trades’ Union, I am instructed to reply on their behalf. In the first place, we would point out 'that Mr Pirani’s reply is made a Press Association one and sent throughout the Dominion, whereas the resolutions ho purports to reply to have never had that distinction accorded them. This is hardly fair. Both sides should have the same publicity. The reasons given by Mr Pitani for holding up back payments awarded by the _ Court from May 1 are very plausible until the other side is presented. The first reason he refers to as delaying payments reads : “ Any sum paid as contributions in excess of Is per week to be set aside as a separate _ fund to meet usual out-of-work and retiring allowances and claims under tho workers’ mortality scheme.” Mr Pirani says the “hold-up is due to an attempt to introduce this new provision into the preference clause without specially directing the attention of the Court to it, and the provision is quite foreign to an Arbitration Court award.” This is a remarkable and verymisleading statement to make in face of the fact that this same provision was in the last typographical award, dated April 2, 1917 —over three years ago—and that it was put not only in that award, but in the present one, with Mr Pirani’s concurrence, because it is a provision mutually agreed to at conferences between the employers and employees, at which Mr Pirani was present on each occasion. Yet he says it is a “now provision.” He ought to have known, better. There was no necessity to direct the attention of tho Court to a clause which was over three years old. In any case, it is in only one award, and not in the other. Then, why nold this one back ? Please try some other excuse. We are informed bv Mr Pirani—ami we believe this is cored—that the issuing of tlie award has 'been iield up by the .Labor Department in Wellington on account of this clause. This, is 'remarkable, hj anew a Government servant taking upon himself to refuse to publish a document from a legally-constituted Court because he thinks there is something wrong with it. Surely it is not for him to decide this. His business is to issue the award as he goto it, a fid leave tho onus of the danse to be shouldered by the Court. But, after all, is this withholding a valid reason why the emuloyers should not pay out? The decisioir o f the Court has been filed "with the Clerk of Awards and should be acted on. The legality or otherwise of this particular danse has nothing to do with merits of the case. It is a cl a use _ which has no bearing on wages or conditions, and is of no concern to the employers. Mr Pirani endeavors to make capital out of the fact that the employers paid the higher wage from April/2, although they were not legally bound to do So. i'ruo they were not “ legally ” bound to pay during the month of April only, but they were “morally” bound to' do so, because at conferences which were attended by Mr Pirani, representing the employers, it> agreed to pay tile liiglier and this agreement was honorably carried’ out by most of the employers. Not to have done so would have been to repudiate an agreement, and under these circumstances we cannot see very much virtue in tneir action.

T! *® position at present is that, although the Court on September 13 awarded back pay to May 1, the employers in general -larc net yet paid out. This is a matter ion a ®'® c - s about 180 male members and 100 icmale members of our local unions, and the amounts range from over £3O down to 25s permember, Gan it be wondered, at that this delay is causing a great deal of feeling among our members In answer to Mr Pirani the Court have again decided that these payments have- to be made.

In fairness to our local employers we wish to say that we believe they were (> ,P?yi but in loyalty to the ' \-ellington I n ion, of which Mr Pirani is secretary, and on advice from there payment was withheld. The onlv blame we jt-tach to thorn is that they followed a mistaken lead. We understand the Auckland employers refused to follow this lead as we are informed they have already paid back money due, as has also one of the local firms.

By instructions from and on behalf of the helorementionod unions—J am etc . , , ~ E - Ferguson, Secretary." October 13. J