TIMBER WORKERS

Grey River Argus, 9 February 1928, Page 5

TIMBER WORKERS

! AWARD QUESTION [ West Coast Dispute Goes to Court. At present there is a difference as between the timber workers and sawmill owners of the Dominion in the matter not only of the terms for a new award, but of whether the Court shall make an award for the whole industry or one for each industrial district. This point was the main one discussed yesterday at the sitting here of the Conciliation Council, to which the employers of the Westland industrial district jiad cited the West Coast Timber Workers’ Union, making an application for a local award. The terms for the award which rhe employers proposed: Were the same as those in the existing fcward. The Timber Workers’ Union submitted counter' proposals to the Council, including certain wage increases.

• Conciliation Commissioner W. H. Hagger, presided over the Council, on which the Union representatives were Messrs Ij. Topp (Ma wheraiti) and J. Doyle (Nelson Creek), while the employers were represented by Messrs John Gilbert (Kumara), J. W. Caldwell j(Greymouth) and W. J. Butler (Ruatapu). Mr F. L. Turley (Secretary of the limber Workers’ Union) was also present on its behalf, while Mr W. C. Prime (of the N.Z. Employers’ Federation) was present on behalf of the millowners.

For the mill owners, Mr Prime said they were asking for an award for the Westland Industrial District. On the other hand, th e Unions of the workers were asking for a Dominion award. 1 his question of a local or a Dominion award had in other districts been already before the Conciliation Council, and it had been left to the Court to decide whether there should be an award for the Dominion or not. The employers considered a Dominion award t° be impracticable. Conditions varied in the different districts. The employees wanted an assurance that if a local award were discussed, any matter the Union might desire to include in a Dominion award would be excluded from such discussion.

Mr Turley, for the Union, said that next week, on February 13, there would be a discussion at Christchurch on the Dominion award question. If they were able by descussion to reach agreement on all or some of the proposals now before the Council it would obviate the need for a further meeting here of the Conciliation Council, should the Arbitration Court decide not to make a Dominion award. On the other hand, if they now failed to discuss the proposals.before them, the matter would have to go on to the Arbitration Court. Nothing which would be discussed at their present meeting could affect what would take place at the conference re garding a Dominion award.

The Commissioner said that the desire of the employers was that the proposals be discussed only as a local dispute without reference to the question of a Dominion award, but solely with the idea of reaching a local award. Mr Turley said a discussion on those lines would be impossible. The Commissioner said that in that case they had two alternatives. The meeting would be adjourned until after the Court had dealt with the question of a Dominion award, or the whole matter could be referred to the Ax bitration Court with no recommendations. Mr Butler proposed that the case be adjourned sine die pending the decision of the Court as to whether it would make a Dominion award or local awards.

Mr Turley objected to an adjournment.

It was therefore decided to forward the proposals of both sides to the Arbitration Court with no recommendations fr * e Conner 1