ANNUAL HOLIDAYS ACT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21385, 21 April 1944, Page 6

ANNUAL HOLIDAYS ACT

EMPLOYERS’ VIEWPOINT ABRITRATION PRINCIPLE Grave disappointment was felt by many employers throughout the Dominion regarding the passing of the Annual Holidays Bill in the form in which it was presented to the House of Representatives, stated the secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Association, Mr. C. G. Camp, in an interview. When the measure was under consideration, the employers strongly, stressed that a worker should be prevented from accepting employment by any other employer during the annual leave period, except as he might be directed for special purposes under war legislation. It was felt that the Government approved of this proposal, but for some reason it was dropped. Employers maintained that a large number of v/orkers in New Zealand industry already enjoyed 34 holidays per year, since the abolition of Saturday work in many industries. Wages had not been reduced when Saturday work was abolished, and in effect the industries were obliged to pay employees for half a day in each week for which they received no return in work. The statutory holidays laid down in most awards accounted for the balance of the 34 days’ holiday in each year. The economic side of the question, it was held, had apparently had less consideration than it deserved. When the war commenced, there were approximately 050,000 workers employed of whom 500,000 were males. The requirements of the armed forces had accounted for over 135,000 of these workers, thereby depleting industry of a large percentage of its available man-power. Female workers had helped to fill the gap, which, however, still remained. Principal weight was given by the Employers’ Federation to the objection that the legislature had usurped the functions of the Arbitration Court, however. For over 50 years the arbitration system had been the mdst important factor is keeping wages and working conditions abreast of industrial development. The vast amount of experience gained under this system, and the machinery set up under the Act, had enabled the interests of employers and workers alike to receive full consideration. Employers now asked the question: Flow is it possible for necessary wartime production to be maintained if, in every session of Parliament, concessions to workers are to be given without reference to the Arbitration Court’