FORTY-WEEK

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 10

FORTY-WEEK

[ PPL'OATIUH to AFiSIIRAT!O!i COURT TINSMITHS' CASE FOR NEW AWARD Application for a new award by the Dunedin branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union covering the wages and conditions of tinsmiths in Otago and Southland came before the Arbitration Court this morning. His Honour Air Justice Page presided and associated with him were Messrs W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith (assessors). Mr A. J. Rice appeared for the union, and Mr A. S. Cookson for the employers. There was a partial recommendation from the Conciliation Council, the matters referred to, the court dealing with hours of work, holidays, overtime, and the terra of the award. Mr Rice, in submitting the claims of the union, said they had narrowed the clauses in dispute down to the_ main factors which would have a hearing on the proposed legislation _ being introduced to govern industrial conditions in the Dominion, and which was not sufficiently advanced to enable them to agree at the sitting of the Conciliation Council. Had the legislation been enacted at the 'time they had no doubt that a complete agreement would have been reached. They must leave the clauses in dispute to the court to settle, hoping that by the time the award was made, the legislation governing the position would have reached its final stages.

Mr Rice proceeded to traverse the clauses in dispute. Tn submitting the claim for a forty-hour week, he said the reduction had been advocated for some vears past, but had received little consideration. The necessity for’a reduction in hours was so widely discussed throughout the world and so strongly advocated bv many authorities outside the Labour movement that there should be no hesitation in granting this much-needed reform. It was claimed that such reduction was long overdue. No doubt a great outcry would develop from emplovers against this reform, but he would point out that throughout the lifetime of many workers to-day such reforms t had been brought about, always with the same opposition and always with the satisfactory conclusion that time had proved the innovation a blessing to the human race and civilisation ns a whole. They were prepared to accept the forty-four-honr week in the meantime, and would ask the court to make provision for a reduction to 40 hours when the new regulations became operative on September 1 next without a reduction in the weekly aggregate wage. That would bring the wages up to the standard of 1031, which was 2s 3d an hour for a forty-four-hour week, or £4 19s a week, as they understood the new Act was intended to do. That would give the employers ample opportunity to make the necessary adjustments to the changed conditions. In answer to His Honour, Mr Rice said that 2s 3d an hour had been agreed upon.

Dealing with holidays, Mr Rice said it was claimed that the worker was entitled to some relaxation from his daily toil to enjoy a holiday period. In awards which were in existence before the late Government amended the Act to do away with compulsory arbitration there was provision for doub'e pay for all work done on holidays. They were forced into the position of reducing payment to tinte and a-half for certain holidays when the, amendment referred to come into force. In regard to overtime they believed that if the clause “ All work done outside or in excess of the hours mentioned in clause 1 hereof shall count as overtime ” were embodied in the award, it would be sufficient to cover the position, as a worker starting at 6 a.m. and ceasing at 3 p.m. would receive two hours at overtime rates Und six hours at ordinary rates. It was believed that the new legislation would make provision for the union representative to have free access to workshops, and as no doubt the court would introduce a clause to be embodied in all awards to govern this condition they respectfully asked that the new clause be inserted in the award Ft was also understood that a new clause giving absolute preference to unionists would be a provision in the new Act. and as the court would no doubt be called upon to draft that clause they asked that it be included in the award. It was contended that the court should take into consideration tbe_ fact that the award embodied conditions and rates of wages applicable to skilled workers, and that the award should be made accordingly. The industry was one that could stand up to the altered conditions, and it was admitted by employers that so long as conditions were uniform for all concerned they were on a level footing in the matter of competition. In reply to His Honour Mr Rice said it might be desirable to delay the making of the award, until the legislation was passed. He felt that as far as local employers were concerned there would be very little opposition to the claims of the union. During the depression the workers had had to take wages and conditions which were not at all acceptable. _Mr Cookson said the wages and renditions in the industry during the period of the depression were not forced upon thei workers by the employers, but were forced upon the employers themselves by the existing circumstances. It had not been their desire to reduce wages or make conditions worse than they had been previously It was an exaggeration to say the employers said; “ We give you this award or nothing.” Stating the case for the employers, Mr Cookson said that ns there had not yet been enacted an amendment of the I.C. and A. Act. and ns, if the amendment as proposed was enacted, the provision respecting the fixation of the maximum weekly number of working hours would not become operative until the first day of September next, it was respectfully suggested that the present hours of work clause should be reinserted. It was the contention of the employers that the court had no power to consider any argument which might bo advanced in anticipation of an alteration in the legislation, and that in reaching its decisions it must be influenced solely by the provisions of the Act as they exist to-day. With the exception of sub-clause (b), which permitted any employer by agreement with , his workers to work the 44 hours within five days of the week, the present clause was an old-established one. If it was reinserted and the contemplated amendment of the Act was made, it would be competent for the union to make application to the court for a reduction of hours. In his opinion that only would be' the proper time for the practicability of a reduction in hours to he argued. Dealing with holidays. Mr Cookson said that in sub-clause fa) tlte points in dispute were first, the number of holidays, and, second, the rate ot payment to he made for work done on the specified holidays. Under the present

award the payment proscribed was double time for work done on Sundays, Christinas’Day. and Good I*’ riday, and time ami a-half for work done on New Year's Day, Master Monday, King’s birthday, Labour Day, Anniversary Day, and Boxing Day. The claims of the union included the following additional days;—January 2, Master Saturday, and Anzac Day. and asked that payment at double time be made for work done on any of the specified days. They regarded the inclusion of Anzac Day as unnecessary, because it was statutorily required to be observed in ail respects as though it wore a Sunday. Provided the present rates of payment for work done were maintained they did not object to the addition of January 2 and Master Saturday, payment at double time rates to be made only for work done on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. Sub-clause (d) of the claims asked that no deduction from wages he made with respect to the holidays- mentioned in sub-clause (a). An hourly rate of wages had been agreed upon, and it was contended that it was unreasonable in any manufacturing industry to pay wages for any day upon which no work was done.

In overtime (a) the point to be settled was the rate of payment. Under the present award the rates were time and a-quarter for the first three hours, and thereafter time and a-half, and thev asked that these rates be maintained. (b) This sub-clause dealt with the rate to be paid for work done between G a.m. and the ordinary hour for commencing work, for .which the claims were time and a-half. They considered the rate should be time and a-quartcr. In (bi the points at issue were the amount of allowance for meal money, and the circumstances in which the allowance was to be made. The present award (clause 4, f) prescribed Is, which was an adequate sum, and provided that the allowance should be made only when workers could not reasonably get home to their meals, or had not lieeu notified the previous day of the intention to work overtime, and they asked that this clause bo reinserted.

Mr Cookson said the parties agreed to\a term of one year, but as there was some uncertainty as to whether the court would adhere to its scheduled dates of sitting, the date'of commencement was left open, except that payment of wages at the new rate should in any case commence from June 20. He suggested that would he a reasonable date from which the award should operate. In reply, Mr Rice said he wished to qualify his remark about employers forcing awards on workers, and would make it a general statement, as in this particular industry the employers had been fair and reasonable. The position, however, was that the employers belonged to the Employers’ Association, and the association as a whole adopted the policy of restricting wages, overtime payments, and holiday payments. Air Cookson: I object to that. His Honour: I don’t think past history will assist us. Air Cookson : It is unfair to make a statement like that because it is entirely unsupported. Air Rice: I withdraw the statement so far as the employers in this industry are cnocerned. AVe have been treated reasonably by them. His Honour intimated that the court would take time to consider its decision.