Attitude Of Employers To Award Claims

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 March 1950, Page 7

Attitude Of Employers To Award Claims

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day (P.A.) —“The cavalier treatment of claims for new awards by employers’ assessors at the Conciliation Council siftings in Wellington to hear seven sectional claims for the clothing industry can,' if persisted in/ lead to only one result—the forcing of the workers to 'sedk justice JCor their claims elsewhere than through the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act,” said Mr John Roberts, national secretary of the New Zealand Clothing Workers’ Union, yesterday. For a fortnight, sittings of the Conciliation Council were held, and the contemptuous attitude of the employers were reminiscent of their attitude towards unionism in the early 1930’s when the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was emasculated and unions had no access to the Arbitration Court except with the leave of the employers, said Mr Roberts.

“Take It Or Leave It”

The act was then known as the “take it or leave it act.” Rather than accept the humiliating offers, some unions for years worked without awards.

“It appeared very clearly to me that the employers’ assessors were working under instructions from the Employers’ Association,” said Mr Roberts. “It was not mere coincidence that in the seven disputes the same cavalier refusal even to dis cuss the claims was encountered. The proceedings were futile —and a yzaste of public money. Such contempt is not in keeping with the spirit of the act. A ‘conciliation council’ presupposes negotiation and discussion in a conciliatory spirit. In our case, the workers’ claims were dismissed without even discussion by the employers.

Industrial Peace

“Such an attitude bodes ill for the industrial peace of the country. Employers will have only themselves to blame if the workers decide that the best results can be obtained by abandoning the procedure under the act and following the courses of some militant sections of the industry, who can show results for their efforts.

“The great majority of workers have worked under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but they may have to make a decision to be more militant if the employers continue their present tactics.” The Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) had recently appealed for harmony in employer-worker relations, said Mr Roberts. The Minister would not get much response from the workers unless he “shook up” his own department. The Clothing Workers’ Union had applied last October for urgent amendment to its rules, but the amendment had not yet been approved. EMPLOYERS’ REPLY TO MR ROBERTS WELLINGTON, This Day (0.C.). —Mr J. R. Hanlon, employers’ advocate in the New Zealand clothing trades employees’ dispute, commenting on the statement by Mr Roberts, said that the workers representatives were treated with the usual courtesy extended to them by the employers. The employers were unable to agree to wage increases, particularly as an adjustment in the wage rates for the industry was made as late as June last by the Court of Arbitration. The Court’s scale of wages was, in any case, the minimum rate payable, and not the ruling rates. The employers felt they had no case to answer on wages. Workers in the clothing industry had had their proper relationships with wage rates in other industries restored and preserved by the Court in June, and the employers did not feel competent to say that the Court was in error. Discussions were held in conciliation council, and some small matters other than wage rates were settled, said Mr Hanlon. To the statement that negotiations had been extended over a fortnight on seven sectional claims, and that some of the employers seemed to be “working under instructions,” Mr Hanlon said that the Employers’ Association did not instruct the assessors, who were appointed at meetings held in various districts, and came to Wellington to inform the advocate of their wishes. Mr Hanlon said the claims of the union would be referred to the Court of Arbitration, and would probably be in the hands of the Clerk of Awards by now. The decision rested with the Court, in accordance with procedure under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.