DID THEY SIGN UNDER PRESSURE?

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3576, 6 April 1927, Page 8

DID THEY SIGN UNDER PRESSURE?

Allegation and Retort in Drivers’ Award Case OROUA COUNTY EXEMPTED R AIR ANG A DRIVERS’ PRIVILEGES. Stringent comments upon the method adopted by the New Zealand ' Drivers’ l ederaton in an endeavour to moke County Councils parties to the Dominion Drivers’ Award, were made by Mr B. L. Hammond, employers’ counsel, at the Arbitration Court yesterday. . The Federation, through its representative, Mr. A. Parlane, brought forward an application to make the Oroua and Kairanga County Councils parties to the Dopinion drivers’ award. Mr Parlane' presented two petitions signed by the drivers but, on being questioned by Mr Hammond, said he could not say for certain whether the Oroua petition was signed by the majority of th e employees or not. Mr Hammond assured the Court that a minority only had signed It. in consequence of which the Bench decided to take no notice of the Oroua petition. \

Mr Parlane drew attention to a press report in which the chairman of the Oroua Council had expressed pleasure at the fact that the. Union organisers had not met with muen support. He inferred from that that the chairman and his council would be displeased with the men if they did join a union. Probably that had had some effect on the men not signing the application. ; >

His Honour said he did not propose to take any notice of- the report. Signing under Pressure.

Mr Hammond objected to tire application of the Kairanga drivers on the ground, first of all, that the union was not authorised to make the request on behalf of the employees of the council. It might be that a majority of the drivers had signed but he alleged that they had - done so under px-essure from the Union organisers who stressed at the time, the operaton of the preference clause, thus leading the men to believe that non-Unionists would be sa,cked. Procedure Objected to. _

Secondly, as a defence* he relied upon the Court’s disapproval of applications made as in the present manner. There were 130 County Councils in New Zealand and the whole of them should have been cited. When the original dispute was before the Court last year only 20 of the Counties had been cited and the whole lot were struck out. Yet the Union was asking the Court to deal with one County to the detriment of the remaining 129. Mr Hammond stated that he had been instructed by the New Zealand Counties Association to, protest against this procedure. It was only a fortnight ago that the Court had expressed disapproval of Union’s citing individual local bodies after the main award had been disposed of. Not Beneficial. Thirdly ? the award would be in no way beneficial to the employees. If the County Council wanted to exact Its pound of flesh the employees would soon wish that the award was not In existence. H e believed that it the men were put in the witness-box—-and he would ask Mr Pariane to do that—and asked if they were better off to-day than under the award, most of them would say that they were. Mr Pariane was obliged to show that the' men .were, dissatisfied. Here were conscientious workers and good men, not getting the award rate of pay certainly, but working without friction and getting the equal of the award rate at least, in other directions. They were ■ suddenly pounced upon by Union organisers and forced to sign under fear. The Act was being used to. foment trouble instead of improving the conditions of the workers. Mr Hammond said ho was quite prepared to take his chance no matter what witnesses w r ero brought before the Court. Mr Pariane' not feeing disposed to call witnesses, Mr Hammond did so. What the Drivers Think. Arthur Harold Mitchell, a onehorse driver employed by the Kalranga County Council, said his wages were 13/6 per day and he worked 47 hours a week . He was occupying one of the county’s brick cottages for which ho paid 17/6 per week rent. There were 2 5 acres of land attached to the house and ho kept a cow and a horse. ■ Mr Hammond: Could you, working for another get another place similar to yours for 17/6 a week? Witness: I don't think I could. Mr Hammond: Is it your desire to got this award ? Witness: It .wouldn’t make much difference to me. Mr Pariane: Have you gone into the wages matter at all? Witness: The award wouldn’t give me much extra. Mr Pariane; Who approached you

regarding signing the applicaton? — The Union organiser. Mr. Parlane: Did he indulge in any threats ? —No. Mr Hammond: When I tell you that if the award is brought into force the staff will have to bo reduced, would you like to bo one of thoso sacked?

Mr Parlane: is that a threat? Mr Hammond: It will be sworn in evidence.

To witness: Would you like to see your mates put off? —No.

Charles Fitt, a motor-lorry driver ; said he received 14/- per day and paid 15/- per week for a four-roomed county cottage. Ha would not be bettor off under the award and had not signed the application. There was no dissatisfaction amongst the employees at present. Witness was practically his own boss and there was a fair amount of give and take between tho engineer and men. Tho latter frequently altered their hours of working to suit the job and their own convenience. Wallace Hallman, a horse driver, getting 13/6 per day, said he occupied a county cottage at 14/- per week and kept cows on the land attached. That'was a big advantage to himself and he did not think he could get another place so cheaply anywhere in New Zealand. He thought himself better off under the presentfavourable conditions than he would be under an award that gave him another fl per week. His employers treated him fairly. To Mr Parlane: It was an advantage to the County Council to have him stationed near his work. He had been paid wet or dry and when ha had been sick his wages had not been deducted. Frank Cecil Coman, a horse driver, stated his wages were 13/6 a day and he paid 17/6 per week for a county cottage with 5J acres attached. He was able to keep a cow. Mr Hammond: Do you want the award ?-—lt would be alright. Mr Hammond: Are you satisfied at present with you c present conditions of employment?—Yes Would you. sooner v be under an award with your present condtions and privileges restricted? —I don’t think so. Mr Parlane: You signed the application? —Yes. Were any threats issued? —No. Robert Henry Hay, who received 17/6 per day as a truck driver, said he knew of no general dissatisfaction amongst the employees of the county. Personally, the award would benefit him in the matter of wages but he didn’t know all the conditions of the award. If the award meant a shortening of the staff then he didn’t want It. Charles Berquist, truck driver, receiving 16/-' per day > said he had been employed by tho Council for about-23 years and the application of an award would restrict tho working conditions which the men sometimes varied to suit themselves. To Mr Parlane: Some of the men seem to want the award and some do not. This concluded the evidence for the drivers. Mr Parlane, addressing the Court, stated that the Federation had been led to believe the men wanted an award but if they could go into the witness box and swear to the contrary, then there was no ■ need for him to press the case. At the same time it was hardly fair to bring men to Court in front of their employers who were dead against an award, and expect them to say straight out what their desires were. His Honour: it is difficult to get evidence in any other way. Mr Hammond: It is hardly fair of Mr Parlane to attack my methods. Some of the evidence has been against us. The County Viewpoint. James E. Henzicis, engineer of the Kairanga County, said the drivers were spread over the 200 square miles of the county and the Council had no means of chocking the overtime of the men. The extra coat of tho award to the County would be over £4OO per year without overtime. The County was working to the absqlute limit of its resources and the award would mean a curtailment of the staff. - He made chat statement -without any threat —it would bo absolutely necessai’y. In addition the rent of tho houses occupied by drivers would have to be increased. It was unfair to attack the Kairanga County in this way to the detriment of all the other counties in the Dominion. Mr Parlane submitted that the evidence showed a desire on the part of the men to have an award and the fact that the award would cost the County more money was proof that t would benefit tho men. The Court reserved its decision.