TIMBER AWARD

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1945, Page 4

TIMBER AWARD

UNION SECRETARY’S COMMENT. ■ Commenting on the Arbitration Court’s refusal of payment for wet time in its award in the Westland timber dispute, the Union Secretary, ( Mr F. L. Turley, said the six reasons given by the Court majority were weak. The issue was dodged by a reference to the 1942 economic stab- j ilisation regulations, but no comment was made about the 1945 amendment thereto, providing for restoring and preserving rates previously existing . as between sections of -workers in dif-- ! ferent localities. Plenty of facts .were submitted to show the Court higher rates were always paid under awards in Westland than those in otherparts, particularly in the North Island. Before the advent of the National Union of Timber Workers, this had always been the case. Westland Union had been trying to restore that position. Parts Tw'o and Three of the award werely hardly an answer to the claims. If a claim were too stringent, that was where the Court, had to adjudicate, but it was hardly arbitration to wipe out a whole , claim because of some part of it not being right. The Court assumed, in Part Four, that because a schedule had been agreed to and rates fixed, payment for working under bad conditions should not be considered. The Union in June and May had made the contrary clear to the Court. Part Five stated none of the awards governing the many groups of Westland workers provided an allowance for wet time. Shop and office workers; however, were about the only ones with no wet time concession. Did not- the Court know watersiders were paid for wet time? Outside mine workers received 9d per day, the year round for it; Public Works men and railwaymen took shelter from rain ond were paid; and railway shunters in Greymouth had a special clothing allowance. Part Six held that Westland timber workers should not have wet time because other timber workers did not receive it. The conditions here were easily the worst in the country, and it was for that reason wages here were higher than elsewhere until the advent of the National Union. Mr Turley said Mr A. Seed, secretary for the Dominion Sawmillers’ Federation in a statement to the Press, had expressed alarm at any statement being; made by the Hon. J. O’Brien, Minister for Labour while the case was still sub judice. He was sure Mr Seed, when he made this’ comment, would have known that the award actually had been made before Mr O’Brien's statement could have reached him (Mr Seed) at Auckland. Therefore to say the statement was circulated in Auckland while the mattei- was still sub judice is plainly not playing the game. It was incorrect of Mr Seed to say that the matter did not affect the employers and that the stoppage was only against the Court. Mr Seed himself had made the wet time clause a question of Westland Employers versus the Westland Timber Workers. Mi- Seed, who had for- a long time wielded the big stick in the North Island, was not going to do so here. If he wished to put the industry back 25 years and bring production down and thereby sky-rocket prices, Westland timber workers would have to be reckoned wit?:. If . he would assist to restore the best possible production, he would be 1 welcome. Production was at .a low . ebb now. .It was hoped in a few days to settle the, wet time question with the employers. ‘ P.A. WELLINGTON, August 22 A denial that he had any intention of influencing the Court of Arbitration on the question of wet time in the Westland timber workers’ award was made by the Acting-Minister of Labour (Mr. O’Brien) this evening, ! when he was asked, to comment on a telegram of protest he had received from the Timber Industry Employers’ Union.

Mr. O’Brien said he interviewed the sawmill owners and the men last April with a view to getting some sections of their agreement put before the Arbitration Court. He understood that the matter did' not go before the Court until May. A decision was delayed, and because it had not been given the men went on strike. The principal question was wet time. He had said to the men that they should go back to work, and if they were not satisfied with the provision in the award they could' approach the owners for an amicable settlement. If they reached that settlement, he suggested that they ask for its inclusion in the award.