ARBITRATION COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 August 1942, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

DREDGE DISPUTE.

The Arbitration Court, sitting in Greymouth, concluded its deliberations yesterday concerning the Westland gold dredge and alluvial gold mines dispute, reserving its decision. Mr. Justice Tyndall presided, with him Messrs W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative). Mr. J. E. Laing conducted the workers’ case and Mr. H. F. Butland that of the employers. , __ When the sitting was resumed Mr. Butland began the cross-examina-tion of the final witness for the workers, Robert Ross McDonald, boiler maker-welder, of Ikamatua. Witness said the new claims of a 40-hour week, daily hours to be 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. “bank to bank,” were intended to bring all men into the same position as shift men. Hakhour crib time was sought, but there was definitely no intention of seeking a 37|-hour week. At Ikamatua the total complement had been reduced by about one-third largely as a result of military call-up, ana yardage had been kept up partly at the expense of maintenance and repairs. During the last 20 months the pressure of work had increased, but there had been very little difference in the nature of the work. To Mr. Monteith: At present shift men worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.in. and were paid for that time, including half an hour crib. It was desired to 1 bring all men under that system. To. Mr, Laing: The accommodation at Ikamatua was excellent, but it was insufficient for the number o. men employed, none being provided for single men. In the past 12 months quite a number of men, dissatisfied with the conditions, had left to take up other positions. This concluded the case for the employees.

EMPLOYERS’ CASE. a

Opening the case for the employers, Mr. Butland said that of the U matters unsettled in the dispute no fewer than 11 were settled by the Court in May of last year. The term-of-award clause could be omitted, because it would have presented little difficulty if the more important clauses had been settled. _ Of tne remaining eight clauses in dispute six represented new claims _by the Union, while of the remaining two the Union asked for an increase in the rate in one case and the employ ers proposed an alteration in the other. , Mr. Butland claimed that the hours of work clause should remain similar to that of the existing award. The “bank to bank” portion of the claim was considered impracticable owing to the loss of dredging time which would necessarily follow’. No great inconvenience was experienced by men having meals while on shut " The wages classification had been agreed on except lor the Union s claim for the inclusion of watchmen, who were not covered by the award and whose inclusion was opposed. Many watchmen were in receipt of pensions which would be affected by regular employment at suggested ia rates of wages claimed by the Union appear to be based on WISHFUL THINKING rather than any standard set by. the Court or agreed on by the parties, Mr Butland proceeded. “They represent an hourly rate of 3/8, and when this is increased by the two Cost ot Living Orders it amounts to 4/-. The Court has refused a number of requests for increases. The skilled dredge workers are at present being paid wages equal to those paid in tin skilled trades, although in many shops a higher standard of workmanship is required. It is submitted that the rates now being paid are at least equal to the Court’s standard for work of a similar nature, and that there is no sound reason why they should be increased beyond that level.” The employers opposed the payment of height money, dirt money (“an entirely new claim”), classification of leading linesmen, increases in the standard skilled rates of pay, and increases of 1/- per day for skilled shift men and day men because of proficiency in the use of tools. Tne Court was asked to insert the actual rates for boys under 19. It was contended that all overtime be paid for at rate and a-half. Regarding Sunday work provision was sought for general repair and maintenance work to be carried out on Sundays, with the proviso that if watchmen were included in the award they would not be paid double rates. Regarding holidays, the employers asked that the days named in the award be broken into two. groups, tne first comprising Good. Friday, Easter Saturday, the Sovereign’s Birthday, and Labour Day, which would be treated as ordinary working days, but work done on these days would be paid at double rates; the second group, New Year's Day, Anzac Day, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day, to be treated as holidays (non- working days). The suggestion arose out of a desire to increase production. Annual holidays: The counterproposals asked for a continuation of the present clauses (a) and (b) with the alteration of the word “(16)” to “(17).” This would not reduce the number of holidays allowed to a man who had served a full year with the same employer, but was designed to prevent a worker who changed his employment after three months’ service from obtaining 19 days’ holiday for the year. Employers strongly opposed the Union claim to dispense with the qualifying period of sei-vice. Absence from work: The employers sought amendments to meet cases which had arisen of men absenting themselves without good cause. Alterations in the travelling time clause were opposed. The extension to dredges of the clause respecting the issue of gum boots was opposed, also an increased rate for wash-up men. The employers asked for a term of two years for the award to prevent any fresh application being filed before the award had run for a reasonable period. FINAL ADDRESSES. Mr. Butland said that while gold dredging had not been declared an essential industry the' Government had not called upon it to cease operations. Mr. Monteith: But you can’t get your gold out of the country, can you? Mr. Butland: I am not in a position to answer that. Mr. Butland later contended that figures of gold production quoted by Mr. Laing, “far from being typical examples were incorrect in themselves.” He also argued that the Union had made an improper move by approaching the Minister of Transport concerning transport while the dispute was before the Court. Mr. Butland intimated that he did not propose to call evidence. Mr. Laing, in his final address, contended that Mr. Butland had not supported some of his counterclaims by evidence. Regarding watchmen’s pay he argued that the fact of pensioners being employed should not be considered when framing an award. The Union was averse to Sunday work, but where emergencies had arisen men had turned out; it was not prepared to concede anything in the way of general repair work on Sundays. The counterclaims apparently had no consideration for the workman, seeking the greatest return for the least outlay. The dredge worker did a 48-hour

week and then performed his Home Guard service entailing greater strain.

Alluding to the production figures quoted, Air. Laing said these had been compiled from newspaper reports and coincided with those in the of the Alines Department at Greymouth. It was difficult to obtain accurate returns and he would not doubt the different figures submitted by the employers. Intimating that the decision of the Court was reserved, His Honor congratulated both advocates on tne temperate manner in which they had presented their cases.