DREDGE WORKERS

Grey River Argus, 7 October 1936, Page 2

DREDGE WORKERS

48-HOUR WEEK Decision of Court CONiOILIATION AGREEMENT RATIFIED. Tho Westland Gold Dredge and Alluvial Gold Mines Employees’ Union of Workers’ application for ratification of the agreement, reached recently in the Conciliation Council came up for decision in the Arbitration Court yesterday morning, when a unique position arose owing ‘to the effect of decisions of a large meeting of gold dredge workers held on Sunday, when strong opposition to the hours clause was laised. His Honour, Air. Justice E. Page, presided and associated with him were Messrs A. L. Monteith (employees’ assessor) and Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ assessor). Mr. D. J- MacDonald appeared on behalf of the employers, whilst the Union was represented by Mr. F. L. Turley. Mr. Turley stated that the application was different from every one he had dealt with in that there, had arisen a dispute between the Union assessors to the Conciliation Council and a large number of members of the Union. The latter now wished to appear before the Court, and ask for alterations in the agreement reached. It wtis ti hard case to deal with as no other award covering similar workers in Xew Zealand could be taken as a precedent. There were no old awards for the purposes of comparison and of drawing up conditions. The question was one of hours, and he had contended that although the Conciliation Agreement provided for a 48-hour week, the Court could not make the hours more than 44 under the Factories Act. Since he had found that from Section 28 of the 1926 Amendment of the Arbitration Act it appeared that the 40-hour week was to be the basis of all awards unless it was proved to be impractical to work the industry satisfactorily on that basis. On behalf of the Union he contended that it was practicable to carry the industry on with a 40-hour week. To His Honour: They agreed to a 48-hour week, although at the time he pointed out that according to his interpretation of the Act the Court could not grant more than 44 hours..

Mr. A. Miller, who was present in Court at this stage stood up to read a statement on behalf of the section of the Union which opposed the granting of 48 hours per week. Mr. Macdonald asked if any individual workers had any standing in the Court. He wished to ask Mi. Tuile-y through His Honour if assuming that the Court could fix the hours at more than 40 he raised any objection to the Agreement made in the Conciliation Council. Mr. Turley replied that he was of opinion that no more than 44 hours per week could be granted. Mr. Macdonald said that he was not asking Mr. Turley’s opinion of the Court’s rights. Mr. Turley: I leave it entirely in the hands of the Court, but I am of opinion that the Court cannot put on more than 44 hours.

Mr. Macdonald protested against this statement. Mr. Turley continuing, said that if they had made an agreement he supposed they should abide by it, but the dredge and alluvial workers had on Sunday held the largest industrial meeting held in Greymouth for many vears, some 170 being present at the Lyceum Hall when they strongly protested against more than 40 hours per week. A Committee appointed by the meeting had met him and he had told them that the hours were a matter for the Court. It was not his own opinion but was the opinion of members of the Union and other dredge workers.

Mr. Macdonald contested the statements of Mr. Turley stating that the position of the hours did not obtain in anv other way. The agreement had been made in the Conciliation Council and Mr. Turley and all the other assessors had been presumed to know the law. The agreement had been made in which the question of hours was one of the four most vital matters the others being wages, holidays and overtime, and Sunday work. All had been dealt with on a composite basis and certain conditions agreed to by the employers’ assessors had evidently been agreed to by misrepresentation of what Mr. Turley stated was in the minds of the workers’ assessors when the agreement was reached. It was the duty of the assessors to comply with the rules of their Union, amongst which they had to protect the lawful interests of their members and to cooperate with the employers in the industry. In the management of the Union by a committee there was provision in Rule 5 it was seen that it was the duty of the Committee of Management at all times to assist the !employers by doing all in their power Io induce the workers to accept agreements made on their behalf. It was the duty of the assessors to have an agreement carried out. The employers had made concessions and were prepared to carry the agreement out. He could not refer to incidents of the past few days for the agreement had been made in the spirit of the rules of the union and of the Conciliation Council. The Court would recognise the manner in which negotiations in the Conciliation Council had been carried out ad how the agreement had been reached. From the point of view of the employers and the workers that type of negotiation had been adopted right through. Mr. Macdonald again raised the right of any individual member of the Union to appear in Court on a matter arising out of an agreement reached in the Conciliation Council. In Clause 26 of the Union rules it wtis stated that the Union was to be represented by the Secretary, Treasurer or agent before the Conciliation Council or the Court, and authority for any one else could only be given by a duly convened meeting authorising some one other than Mr. Turley to appear. The Arbitration Act however, recognised the right of individual employers to appear. He submitted that the whole matter had been carried out properly by the Union, and that the Conciliation Council Agreement must be accepted. In proceedings before the Court workers were referred to as a Union of Workers right through the act whilst

employers were in different position and could appear individually. His Honour (to Mr. Turley): What position are you taking up? Mr. Turley replied stating that he ■ would like Mr. Macdonald to tell the I Court if it were true that he and the speaker had discussed the question of hours before the Conciliation proceedings. Mr. MacDonald said that they had. Mr. Turley had said that he did not think the Court had the right to fix the hours beyond 40 but that had been prior to the agreement being reached, and he (Mr Macdonald) had expressed the opinion that the Court would agree to more than 40, and eventually it was agreed that the hours should be 48. °To His Honour Mr. Macdonald said that the Agreement had been reached in the Conciliation Council which had recommended its ratification to the Court. Mr. Turley said that the employers knew as well as he did that he intended to raise the question of whether the Court had the right to make an .award of more than 40 hours per week. | It was not impracticable in the gold industry, and he had always maintained that, 40 hours per week was quite sufficient. Mr. Madonald replied that he has always taken Mr. Turley’s word in anything, but he had no knowledge of the question being raised in the Coniliation Court or elsewhere. He was prepared! to admit that Mr. luiley was placed in a very difficult position owing to the action of some members of the Union. He himself had no knowledge of the position until late on the previous day. His Honour: Some members of the Union are objecting. Mr. Macdonald: Yes. Air. Turley claimed that if the Conciliation did things 'which were contrary to the law the Court could upset the Council’s decisions. The only reason why the workers had agreed to the 48 hours week was to get a decent living wage. The employers in the gold industry he would say without hesitation had been the hardest men he had had to deal with in 19 years. Mr. Macdonald objected to Mr. lurley’s statement that the wages paid had been insufficient. Mr. Turley said he considered, he was justified in making the statement. A very large portion of the people, at the meeting were not even members of the Union, he continued, and he had been unable to return from Nelson until after the meeting concluded. He was quite in the dark as to what had transpired at the meeting. To Mr. Prime: He admitted that the agreement had been made but doubted the Court’s power to make the hours more than 40. This clause in the Act. he considered made it mandatory for the Court to fix a 40-hour week unless such was impracticable to the industry, and he submitted that it was not in the present case. Mr. Miller again endeavoured to make a statement to the Court, and His Honour and the assessors conferred on the matter. His Honour asked Mr. Miller what his position was. Mr. Miller replied that he was a member of the Union and desired to make a statement. His Honour: It is quite, clear that you have no power to appear for the i Union which Mr. Turley represents. The Court could consider his state- . ment if he could get Mr. Turley to read : it

This Mr. Turley agreed to do, the statement being as follows: “On behalf of 170 gold dredge and Alluvial Mine Employees, I have been asked to appear at this Court and make the following statement: An urgent meeting of all workers referred to above decided on this action last i Sunday and appointed a committee to deal with the matter, the meeting not being satisfied with the proposals arrived at in Conciliation Council by the Delegates: We ask the Court in terms of the 1936 Amendment to the Arbitration Act to make the week's work a forty hour week, as this is quite simply worked, we also ask that th# wages as agreed to per day over six days be the same rate in the aggregate over the five days as this is only a living wage, and the minimum wages in the largest industry on the West Coast, namely, the Sawmills, is 18/- per shift with a five day week of eight hours, and that industry works an ill day shift, whereas the dredges and alluvia! mines work shift work round the clock, and it is surely worth something for this class of work. 'the starting hoars are midnight on Sunday to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 4 pmi., and 4 p.m. to midnight, this method being followed daily The following wi show to the Court how simply the 40 hours can be worked. Working of forty-hour week on gold dredge and alluvial mines: “The following system could be worked easin by the employment of about two more men per dredge. A relief shift to Je formed who would relieve the midnight shift on Sunday night till Monday morning then the day shift on Tuesday, then the afternoon shift on Wednesday, they could then be worked on day work Thursday and Friday wherever they might be required to be and have their day free on Saturday. This would be one week, the next week Ihe relief shift could have their day otl in the beginning of the week and do their two days’ other work also m the beginning of the week, starting iclieving shift midnight on Wednesday night, day shift Friday, afternoon shift Saturday. Under this method there is no need for any broken shifts at all as all employees would work five shifts or eight hours each week.” Mr. Turley: I wish to make it clear that this was not a meeting of the Union, but of gold dredge and alluvial workers who had no knowledge of what I had in mind all along in regard to the question of hours as decided in the Conciliation Council being adopted bv the Court. His Honour: What do you mean by saying in the Conciliation Council or by the Court? Mr. Turley said he thought he did mention hours in the Conciliation Council saying that the Court did not have power to make more than 40 hours per week, but if Mr. Macdonald said he had not done so he might be correct. His Honour: It is quite clear that the Court can fix a 48 hour week where it is shown that an industry cannot be carried on with less hours. In cases where agreements had been reached in the Conciliation Council, the Court always accepted that those making the agreements knew their job. His Honour (to Mr. Turley): Why did you agree? Mr. Turley: Because wo could not get anv less. His Honour: What position do you now take up?

Mr. Turley replied, that he considered the Court should decide on the mat-

ter of hours. He said that if the employers had the hours fixed at 48 and the workers did not want it, he did not know what would happen. They had never at any stage of the proceedings agreed that a 40 hour week was impracticable. He could call one of his assessors to prove that that had never been said.

Mr. Macdonald: I am not saying that what Mr. Turley says is wrong luit as a [mint at issue in the Conciliation Council the question was never raised. If the employers were unable to prove the impracticability of carrying on the industry the Court would Imvc. to fix a 40 hours week he. stated, but the legal question did not. arise and should not have been raised by Mr. 'Turley. He regretted to hear Mr. Turley say what he had done about what was in his mind, because the employers had agreed to two things in the agreement on which they had their objections. The question of costs had been considered and the agreement reached on that basis. The workers in many eases, who had not. been to the meeting would prefer to have the agreement carried out, and he submitted that the Court should not take any notice of the statement handed in by those at. tiie meeting, or their effort to have the agreement altered. He did not mind how many were at the meeting, but pointed out that the rules of the Union contained a provision that the Secretary must be present at all meetings. It was merely certain workers in°a private dispute with the employers who had called the meeting—which they had a perfect right to debut it was not called in connection with the agreement now before the Court. Mr. Turley had said that he had never admitted that a 40 hour week was impracticable, and he would add that the employers had never discussed the question. The agreement was an agreement by the parties made after full consideration of every question affecting the industry. The Court at. a sitting in Wellington would not upset a Conciliation Council Agreement and he submitted that the. Court could not do so with the agreement under consideration. If agreements reached in Conciliation proceedings were not embodied in awards, he contended that the conciliation proceedings were useless and a waste of time. The question of hours had not been raised by the Union or by Mr. Turley, and he submitted that the Court must follow the only possible course as the parties in the Conciliation Council were best able to decide upon the issue. If Mr. Turley’s contention were correct, the Court had no right to take any notice of conciliation council agreements and the Council was useless. In this case, in consideration of other privileges, the Conciliation Council agreement had been made with more than 40 hours work per week.

His Honour announced that the Court would adjourn for a few minutes to discuss the situation which had arisen.

Upon resuming 15 minutes later, His Honour announced that the Court had considered the matters in dispute and the facts were that the parties had reached an agreement in the Conciliation Council with the exception of one clause. The workers now raised the question of the power of the Court to make a 48 hour week. It was quite clear that the Court had been given that power, where it was shown that

the operation of lesser hours in any industry was impracticable. It was not a question of hours only but other elements of impracticability had to be considered, amongst them that of the financial position of the employer. The Court had no information on this question and therefore had no opinion to express on the subject. The Court could not now make an award without the consent. of the assessors. Ihe view of the Court was that where an agreement had been made it must b,e adhered to. They had a similar instance in Auckland and had dealt with it. 11l the present ease the workers must make up their minds as to their attitude and if they arrived at a decision the Court could accept the view arrived at. If they could not agree, the whole matter would have to be referred back to the Conciliation Council because it was quite clear that an agreement had been reached with a 48-hour week and certain other conditions such as holidays, wages and overtime. The Court would adjourn until 2.15 p.m. to enable the parties to discuss the matter further. The Court adjourned at. 11.45 a.m.

COMPLETE AGREEMENT REACHED. The following assessors discussed the position in committee: Messrs Macdonald, Radford, Deunehy and Lewis (employers), 'Turley, Samson. Cuttanee and Alouat (employees), and at 12.25 p.m. it was announced that an agreement had been reached. Upon resumption of the Court. Mr. Macdonald informed the Bench that the conference had arrived at certain decisions which it would recommend the Court Io accept. The recommendations were the. adoption of the award as recommended by the Conciliation Council for a period of one year, it being understood that the question of the practicability or impracticability of conducting the industry on a 40 hour week be open for argument at any further hearing either before or when application is made for a new award in .12 months’ time. Secondly, neither party was to be prejudiced by the proceedings now being taken, these being based upon the conditions of the industry at the present, time. Mr. Turley agreed with Mr. Macdonald’s statement to the Court. His Honour said that the Court would make an order in terms of- the recommendations made to it and would insert the usual clause regarding un-der-rate workers.

Mr. Macdonald said that he wished to have the application of A. and T. Burt, Ltd. for exemption withdrawn, and this was ordered by the Court. The Court also agreed to amend the name of Kumara Goldfields Ltd. to Kumara Goldfields. Mr. Macdonald asked that the award be for one year from that date, the new rates of wages to operate from October 1.

The Court agreed to make the order accordingly, and then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.