Passenger Drivers’ Claims for Award

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 82, 7 April 1938, Page 2

Passenger Drivers’ Claims for Award

40-HOUR WEEK AT ISSUE Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 5. The feature of the first day’s hearing of the New Zealand passenger transport drivers’ industrial dispute in the Second Court of Arbitration at Wellington to-day was the preparation, upon request, of a plan by one of the workers showing how a 40-hour week of five eight-hour days could bo worked. Under cross-examination this witness subsequently agreed with the contention of the advocate for tho employers that the plan could best be worked on a fortnightly basis and suggested a 42-oS-hour fortnight allowing for two consecutive days off a week, to .be worked on a daily basis of eight and a-half hours in a span of 10 hours. Mr. Justice Hunter presided and with him were Messrs. V. Duff (employers’ representative) and A. W. Croskery (employees’ representative). Mr. H. J. Bishop appeared for the employers and Mr. F. C. Allerby for the employees. The union, said Mr.. Allerby, considered that proper organisation would reduce the daily span of hours and permit the working of a five-day week. The union also asked that the limit of time #vorked without a meal interval should be five hours, and that booking off for meals should not occur at intervals of less than four hours. It was the practice of some employers to book a driver off within an hour or so of his commencing the shift, and deem it a meal interval. To prevent this, the union asked that a driver should not be booked off within three hours of his

The union asked that the wages should be increased to £G per week. The Court should award an increase greater than the average of 11s because of the increased responsibility, the greater carrying capacity of vehicles, and increased number of fares to be handled. For general overtime, the union asked for time and a-half for the first two hours; and thereafter double time. The union claimed for -extra pay for work on Sundays and certain holidays. The ] union asked for extra payment for drivers of vehicles with a seating c.apaI city of more than nine passengers. Casual rates should be. at least 80 per cent, above the weekly rates. The , union opposed the proposal of the employers that workers employed for less . than 30 hours per week should be paid at casual rates. Tho union asked , that payment bo made weekly, that , leave should be granted at six-monthly periods, and that payment of wages . should be retrospective from October 1, 1937. Five witnesses, all oinbnibus drivers, L gave evidence in support of the workers’ claims. Questioned as to how a 40-liour week of five eight-hour days I could be worked, one witness preL pared a plan which he stated was based ) on his own service, but he could seo no reason why it should not apply to all , other services. Cross-examined by Air. ; Bishop, the employers’ advocate, witness admitted the workers’ aim to secure a five-day week with two conse--4 cutive days off could best be achieved \ when taken on a fortnightly basis. * Outlining the case for the employers*, Air. Bishop said the provisions of the 1 1920 award had been substantially fol--1 lowed ever since and had remained unaltered in general application. The ) onus was on the union to justify any departure from the award conditions, 1 particularly the hours of work. He confc tended that the onus was not discharged, pointing to the evidence oFthe 3 witnessed who had prepared the plan. 3 The Court of Arbitration fixed fortnightly hours in this industry in 1336 after hearing lengthy evidence on the claims for a 40-hour week. Dealing with the claim for an increase in wages, Air. Bishop contended t that the conditions of work to-day were H a big improvement on 1926, when the award was made due to better roads r and more up-to-date vehicles. He also emphasised that any increased costs t might be detrimental to the service, as these woul<J have to be passed on to the public. , The hearing will bo resumed to- . morrow.