IMPORTANT DECISION

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 114, 10 April 1930, Page 4

IMPORTANT DECISION

IN FLAXMILLING DISPUTE.

NEW RATES AWARDED. Described as having a grave effect on the flax industry, an important decision was given by the Court of Arbitration in Palmerston North last evening, when new rates were fixed for certain methods of cutting the green fibre. Proceedings were originally instituted last November, but were adjourned pending the conducting of a test by both parties to the dispute. The Bench found itself in the curious position of having to adhere to a retrospective judgment, which was accepted with considerable misgiving by the employers. , Mr Justice Frazer presided, with him on the Bench being Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr L. M. Monteith (employees’ representative). The parties to the dispute were the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers and the New Zealand Flaxmillers’ Association. Mr P. T. Robinson (secretary) appeared for the union, Messrs A. Seifert and H. T. Greedy representing the association-. Application was made last November by the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers, in pursuance of clause 22 of the Wellington flaxmills employees’ award dated June 28, 1927, to the Court of Arbitration ' at Palmerston North for an order fixing a fair and equitable rate of pay- ' ment for cutting flax by what is known as the “A” and “cone” shape methods. . Clause 22 of the award provides: “In , the event of new machinery being in- ( troduced into any flaxmill, or new pro- , cess of manufacture being adopted ( which alters the nature or amount of work necessary in connection with any . operation in the manufacture of hemp ( the rates of pay for such work shall be , arranged by mutual agreement he- , tween the Employers’ Association and the union. Failing such agreement, ■ the matter shall be referred to the Inspector of Factories for the district, and if his decision is not acceptable to either party, the matter shall be referred to the Court of Arbitration for settlement.” Known as the “A” and “cone” shape methods, new processes of cutting flax were introduced and a dispute arose regarding payment. On May. 19, 1929, the Inspector of Factories for I the district sat as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of clause 22, and on Juno 7, 1929, he issued an award fixing the rate of 12s 6d per ton for the “A” shape method and 10s 3d per ton for the "cone” shape method as the basis of payment. The union concerned was of opinion that the rate fixed was too low, and in consequence was unable to accept it. It asked that the Court of Arbitration should fix the rate of payment in pursuance of the powers reserved to it under clause 22 of the award, and. made application accordingly. After hearing evidence at the last. sitting the Court adjourned the case until a test had been conducted to ascertain actual conditions. GRAVE INJUSTICE LIKELY. “Unfortunately, we have found the trial to he misleading,” stated Mr Alfred Seifert when the case was re- 1 sumed yesterday afternoon. “There would be a grave injustice done to the flax industry if the rates were made too -high,” he added, “while if they were fixed too low, it would be doing a similar injustice to the workers. The difficulty of bringing definite evidence before the Court is that, unless the tests were taken under observation, they are not acceptable.” ,; I understand the difficulty,” commented Mr Justice Frazer, “but the Court was . asked to fix the rates, and without definite evidence before it on the previous occasion, it could not make a decision. I don’t think that .there was any question of the admissibility of the evidence. It was inconclusive. \Ve wanted information which would enable us to determine the ability of

the men and the quality of the flax.” “My long experience over a period of forty years lias taught me to doubt the accuracy of such a test as has been conducted for the fixing of a comparative rate,” said Mr Seifert, “when it depends solely on the efforts of the men. Our Flaxmillers’ Association has protested against it.” “We cannot help that,” said Mr Justice Frazer. “Both sides came along and asked us to accept something. Your material may be all right so far as it goes, but it is challenged by the other side. Both expressed dissatisfaction before and the Court suggested a test, to which both agreed. I understand that it was honestly conducted.” “We have no doubt about the honesty, of the men,” said Mr Seifert, “but the results were so contrary to the long experience which we have had that we could not accept them. I tako it that the Court does not want to make a mistake in this matter. We could not, as representatives of the Flaxmillers’ Association, rely on the test, as we knew that it was wrong. We know the difficulties, but we suggest that the Court send a representative to investigate the whole matter. Tho books will be open for inspection, and tho men can be interviewed.” Replying to Mr Mqnteith, it was admitted by Mr Seifert that the test had previously been agreed upon, but the Court had to make a correct decision. Mr Justice Frazer: We realise all that. We wanted to fix the rates before, but did not have sufficient material before us. Mr Seifert: Well, how are we to obtain it? Mr Justice Frazer: Both sides agreed to the test and if it was not conducted satisfactorily we will throw it out; yet you tell us that it was quite fair, but misleading. Mr Seifert: So far as I could see, the men were not loafing, but I or any other man could slow up thirty per cent, and I defy any man to pick it. I could work hard on one method and slow up on another. The result of the test is contrary to past experience with thousands of tons, and it is my duty as representative of the association to make that statement. However, if the Court likes to take upon itself the responsibility of fixing the rates on that basis, we will have to abide by its decision. EXPIRATION OF AWARD. Mr Justice Frazer: This award has now expired. If tho rate fixed for the methods is considered unprofitable by the millers, I take it that they will not use them. I wonder if any better test can be obtained than that to which both sides committed themselves. Really the matter has been taken out of the hands of the Court. It might be that the men were unconsciously not putting forth their best, but there would be difficulty in providing it. Members of this Court could not spend weeks watching the men and making up their minds if they were putting their best into the job. The only way of settling the matter, apart from a test, is for both sides to agree on an expert to investigate the whole matter and make the settlement retrospective.

Mr Seifert said that would be reasonable, as the men would be seen engaged under the usual working conditions. The only other way, to his mind, was to fix a minimum rate. Explaining the nature of the test, Mr H. T. Greedy, who supported Mr Seifert, stated that on one method three men maintained an output equivalent to five tons for an eight hour day. That could not be approached under ordinary conditions, proving that the test was inconclusive. Efforts could not be sustained over two successive rune on one method. On tho “A” shape and diamond methods the men improved as they went along. Mr P. T. Robinson stated that the tests were conducted in three hour runs, with a spell between each. Mr Justice Frazer (to Mr Greedy): You are assuming that the men went “eyes out” on the first run and could not maintain the rate on tho second? —Yes.

His Honour commented that when the first run commenced two hours after work had begun, and the second ave hours afterwards, there could conceivably be a difference in the repetitive rates of progress. Mr Robinson: Tho millers aro trying to make this an everlasting dis-

pute. 'We both agreed to the tost. When it was finished I asked the manager if he was satisfied with the men s work, and ho replied that ho was. The flax was taken to the mill and weighed. Now wo find that the millers object, saying that the test was misleading. It is the only possible way to obtain sat- 1 isfactory results The millers have absolutely no reason whatever for objecting to the price of 13s 2d for ■•he “cone” method and 15s for the “A” method, as worked out by the test. “Fortunately there is no dispute as to what terms were agreed upon for tho test,” commented Mr Justice Frazer. “I was rather apprehensive about that. It was suggested that each method should be under test for a week, but the parties were left to make their, own .arrangements. They agreed to make a shorter test of three hours each. Perhaps that was a mistake. Still, both went into it with their eyes open. It is not suggested that there has been any dishonesty. Three men were sejected, the union choosing one, the millers .another and tho third being mutually decided upon. We know that human nature is weak and that wo cannot guard against all of its frailties. THE PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED. “The principle of tho test was accepted,” he continued, “and it was definitely agreed upon that any rates should be retrospective to November 15. If there had not been such a definite acceptance of the test, the Court could not have ruled that it should be made retrospective. _ The Court might have said that tho circumstances were open for the conducting of .another tost, but it is precluded from doing that by its own judgment, which it must adhere to. That was that the test agreed upon by both parties would be accepted by the Court < s its own judgment. Tho Court cannot possibly depart from that judgment. It might be that tho tost was misleading, but that was unfortunate. If both parties chose to reduce the time suggested that is their funeral, not ours. Tito Court has no option but to fix the rates which tho test shows of 13s 2d for the “A” shape method and 15s for tho “cone” shape method —to be retrospective to November 15, 1929. FUTURE OPERATIONS. “Now this award has expired,” said Mr Justice Frazer. “There is a possibility that tho rates and conditions may be amended, at any time. If tho rates are exoessive and unprofitable to tho millers, I take it that the union will be quite willing to meet them and discuss somo other workable method which will operate to the satisfaction of all concerned. Mr Seifert (to Mr Robinson, tho union representative): Remember that. “I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the tost carried out was good; bad or indifferent,” added Mr Justice Frazer. Mr Seifert: I implore you to fix a minimum rate. It is a very grave matter for the industry. I have been in it forty years .and know that there will bo no pssible chanco of arranging another suitable test. Mr Justice Frazer: I take it that it tho rates of payment are too great for j tho millers to meet, then they will not use tho methods concerned. It will be futile fixing the rates if nobody is going to pay them. If the position is like that, then the matter must be settled between yourselves in a reasonable manner. In any event, with the expiration of the award, either party can bring the matter before the Court again. Whichever makes .application, however, should, take my advice and have tho little intricate questions settled outside the doors of the Court. An hourly rate can bo fixed during tho currency of the award if application is made for that purpose. “Thank you, Your Honour,” said Mr Seifert, “but we have never been able to agree at any time.” Mr Seifert intimated that the new conditions forced, upon tho industry would mean reductions in the amount of labour employed.