ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 26029, 18 February 1947, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT

ROPE AND TWINE SPINNERS’ DISPUTE Decision was reserved by the Arbitration ’ Court—Mr Justice Tyndall, Messrs W. Cecil Prime (employers’- representative) and A. L. Monteith (workers’ representative)—yesterday in a dispute which involved ,the Otago and Southland Rope and Twine Spinners’ Industrial Union of Workers.

Putting the case for the union, Mr W. C. Macdonnell said that the matters in dispute included overtime on shift work, provision for a break of 10 minutes in the morning and afternoon, weekly wage deductions, meal money, Anniversary Day as a holiday, the transfer of holidays falling on Saturdays, and dirt money. Shift workers were entitled to payment for meal

times and allowances in other awards, Mr Macdonnell said. An increase of Is in the shift rate of 2s an hour was claimed, and also an amendment to the classification of rope makers. Regarding wages, he said that the employees found themselves in the position of being in an inadequate position

on the wage scale. Increases of only Id an hour had been claimed. Youths were entering in this work -a dead-end trade, with no security .of employment, and were not being paid adequate compensation compared with apprentices in skilled trades. The woiikers claimed that certain deductions from wages as the result of the breakdown of machines should be eliminated. A guaranteed minimum wage had been allowed in other awards, and this also was sought. Double time was claimed for over three hours of overtime daily, ini stead of after four hours, as at present. Mr Macdonnell said in conclu- ' sion that adequate payment had never | been made for dirty work. For the employers, Mr A. S. CuokI son contended that the claim for the payment-of'meal money and allowances | was unreasonable, and that repeated dei eisions of the court regarding shift ! money payments had been ignored in j the new claims. The employers con- ! tended also that the classification of rope maker applied only to the head rope maker at any .one works, who was the only man competent to supervise the, work. Regarding the clause referring to breakdowns of machinery, this had appeared in au T ards since 1920. If the employees had desired a minimum weekly wage it was surprising that they had claimed on the basis of hourly rates. No reason had been given for the request for a' reduction in the period relating to double time for overtime. A certain amount of dirt was inevitable in any factory work, and the rope factories were no dirtier than many others. The daims for Anniversary* Day and the transfer of holidays were not justified, as the workers icceived nine paid'holidays as well as two weeks’ holiday on pay annually.