THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19386, 21 October 1926, Page 12

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

[By Veteran.]

liicl contc’.butioni on matter* with reference ta ihe Liter Movement are Invited. PAINTERS’ AWARD. Recently I had handed to mo the following statement, ■which, I uuucrstand, is to bo sent to all Labor uicmbers of Parliament, tho Minister ol Labor. local M.P.s, also all painters’ unions“ Tho Dunedin Painters’ Industrial Union of Workers strongly protests against the delay of the Arbitration Court in hearing our application for a new award. Tho application was made at tho end of April, 1926, and tho case was not heard until September, 1926, and the award not to como into force until October 11. Tins after tho pronouncement of tbo court on September 13, 1925, that all skilled workers wore entitled to a rise of Id per hour, seems to be a very unfair attitude to take up. Tho Dunedin union asks all other unions in the federation to endorse this protest, and forward same to their local M.P.s and tho leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party, also tho Minister of Labor.” On making inquiries into the matter I found that tho last award expired on May 19, 1920, and tho Federated Painters and Decorators’ Association took advantage of tho amended Act of 1925, which in sub-section 4 of section 41 gives permission to file a demand for a now award before tho expiry of any current award, but not more than two months before. I understand that an application for a new award was made about tho .end of April or very early in May, 1926. The case was heard by a Council of Conciliation in Wellington on Juno 9 and 10, and referred to tho court, which did not hear it until August 31. The secretary of the federation' informed me that ho protested to tho judge about tho delay, but got no satisfaction on the question. Under the circumstances it seems that the unions and the federation have good reason to protest. It seems that journeymen painters throughout the dominion have been paid la per hour less than the court thought they were justly entitled to for over twelve months, which means that 1,000 workers have been paid Id per hour less than they should have been for over one year. In up the court’s pronouncement of September 13, 1925, I found that it said that unless by agreement between employers and workers the rise could not take effect until the date of expiry of current awards. No one would expect tho' employers to give the rise before the court ordered it, unless conditions of tho labor market forced it on them. The secretary of the Painters’ Federation says: “The cause of tho delay was the deliberate attitude of the representatives of the Employers’ Federation, who, realising that an increase in the minimum wage was to be made, delayed the case for that reason so as to stall off the payment as long as possible.” I think most peoplo will agree that the painters have not been treated fairly. It seems all parties expected this rise to take place; then what reason could there be in delaying the coining into operation of tne award until October 11, seeing the court heard tho case on August 29? The 1 following protest entered by Mr Monteith and the judge’s comments speak for themselves : —“ 1 dissent from the wages awarded by tho majority of the court, and believe that these workers are entitled to at least tho same treatment as was given in the case of the 1 carpenters (Vol. XXIV., p. 460), whom I tho court considered lost more time on I outside work than tho average skilled i worker. Mr Scott, although dissolving from that decision, admitted that ' painters lost more time than carpenters |on outside work. Therefore it seems ; clear that if tho carpenters’ loss of ’ time on outside work is above the aver- ' age, painters who loso more time than carpenters must certainly also bd above the average; and I certainly agree that painters lose more than carpenters do on outside work. In ray opinion tho court, to be consistent with the abovementioned decision, should have granted an increase over and above the usual skilled rate, to cover the inevitable Joss that faces workers in the painting trade on outside work, and to which i think they are entitled.’-*

“ In so far as the cpiestion of lost time is concerned, 1 am not in agreement with cither of my colleagues. The' court heard very full evidence on the matter of lost time when this dispute was before it in 1924, and it then appeared that, with the exception of brush hands, capable only of doing Jess skilled work, very little time was lost. Inside work is generally available in wet‘weather for men competent to perform it. Though I decided in favor of awarding carpenters an additional i]d per hour, this was granted partly because of the increased cost of tools and partly because the time lost by carpenters through wet weather exceeded that lost by the average skilled worker. As Mr Montcitb has stated, Mr Scott dissented from that decision. The effect of tho wages clause of the present award is to grant to painters an increase of Id per hour, in accordance with the court’s pronouncement of September, 1925.—(Signed) F. V. Frazer, Judge,” My personal opinion is that inside work in wet weather is as often_ available for skilled carpenters and Joiners as it is for painters, and one is just as likely as the other to lose time through wet weather, PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS. In one of the recent awards of the Arbieration Court the question of payments for holidays is reviewed at some length. Mr Monteith recorded tho following dissenting opinion;— “The union in this case has made a claim for payment for award holidays. It-day weekly workers receive payment ior holidays,’and 1 believe it is an injustice to go to one section of workers aud refuse the same treatment to others simply because they are hourly workers. Such practices to ray mind make only for discontent. The practice of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court is stated by Mr Justice Powers in the case of the Federated Gas Employees, C.A.R., vol. 15, 1921, page 858, He states: ‘Since 1907, particularly in recent awards, loss of time suffered by workers through holidays (for which they were not previously paid) had been met. Payment for holidays is either expressly ordered or the basic wage is increased by the amount lost, An°examplc of how that court increases the hourly wage by tho time lost is o-iven in the case of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers’ Union, C.A.R., vol. 21, 1925. The Commonwealth Court has adopted the principle of payment for holidays for all workers, and I believe this court, in the present case, should have added three farthings an hour to tho rate awarded, which would compensate for time lost by holidays, and would place these workers on the same basis as weekly workers.” The majority of tho court could not accede to the claim for payment of holidays not worked, for the reason that the rate fixed is a casual rate, which is designed to cover such contingencies as time lost through holidays and other causes. That this is so is made clear by a judgment of Mr Justice Stringer in re the Christchurch tramway employees’ award (Book of Awards, vol. xxi., page 997), in which the court says, in relorring to a basic wa ,T c pronouncement made on April 27,° 1926 i ‘ln making the pronouncement referred to in connection with the increase in the basic wage of _ workers generally the court was referring only To ihe ordinary cases of workers who are engaged in trades or industries properly so called, and who are generally accepted as falling within the definition of ‘ skilled,’ ‘ semi-skilled, or ‘unskilled,’ and whose employment is more or less of an intermittent chancier. Tho pro nonneemont of tlie court as to basic wan,os was not intended to apply to oases' of a special character such as the present, where the workers have permanent employment, aml_ have concessions in the shape of holiday leave on full pay, supply of uniform, free passes oil tho tramways, etc.”