FOUNDRY HANDS STRIKE

Evening Star, Issue 22818, 29 November 1937, Page 10

FOUNDRY HANDS STRIKE

TROUBLE IN LOCAL WORKS 13d MEN WALK OUT DISPUTE OVER HOLIDAYS As a protest against what they claim is an unfair system of holidays evolved by the principals of the firm of H. E. Shacklock Ltd., all the 180 employees of the South End Foundry, except the apprentices and the foreman, went on strike at 11 o’clock this morning following a stop-work meeting, and at noon decided to cease work for the day, pending another meet- . ing at 8 o’clock to-morrow morning. The men stopped work at 10.30 a.m., and after a deputation had been received by the management, they walked out of the foundry half an hour later and discussed their grievance on the reserve opposite the works. The basis of their argument is that instead of the customary practice of commencing the annual holidays on December 24 the management of the firm decided to close tho works on Tuesday, December 9, and reopen them again on January 3. A notice to that effect was posted this morning, and while the men contend that they do not object to a vacation of nearly four weeks instead of the customary two weeks, they believe that by this arrangement they will lose the benefit of the holiday pay they believe to be due to them as the result of the three statutory holidays— Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year’s Day. This they pointed out to Mr P. W. Shacklock (managing director of the firm), and offered to compromise with alternative proposals. Their terms w T ere rejected, and the men unanimously decided to leave in a Body. They also point out that many of the married men would be handicapped through such an arrangement; as the schools do not close till about December 16. “ We will keep out of the works until we obtain satisfaction, even if it takes us a week or a month,” said the spokesman for the men, when approached to define their attitude. “This is not a stop-work meeting, but a strike, as all the men are in agreement. The men do not object to the two extra weeks holiday, but to the fact that they are being given two weeks before Christmas.” A statement was given by Mr F, O. Shacklock, one of the principals of the, firm, to a reporter, and he said ■ that this firm had done what many others had not—kept a full staff throughout the winter. He explained that it was distinctly unfair for the employees to infer that the firm desired to evade holiday payments through the adoption of the system of holidays, for the simple reason that _ the employers throughout the dominion were not fully in agreement about the question of holiday payments, because Christmas Day was a Saturday, and the issue might yet be contested by referring the position to the-Arbitration Court for a ruling. The employees of the firm, he said, were holding a pistol at the management’s head, as they had not . put their case in the form of a-request, but as a demand. [ Attention of employees, is directed to an advertisement by the firm elsewhere in this issue.]