Baking Industry

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 180, 2 August 1938, Page 9

Baking Industry

APPLICATION FOR NEW AWARD DECISION RESERVED. WELLINGTON, July 3. Hearing of the Dominion bakers and pastrycooks’ industrial dispute was concluded in the Court of Arbitration at Wellington yesterday, when the case for the employers was presented. The only matters argued were those ot wages, starting time, daily hours, definitions and retrospective pay, the court reserving its decision. The president, Mr Justice O’Regan, had with him Mr W. Cecil Prime (em ployers’ representative), and Mr A. L Monteitli (employees’ representative) Mr D. I* MacDonald appeared as advocato for the employers and Mr E. J Watson for tho applicant union. Mr Macdonald said that the employ ers were prepared to amend their claims for complete freedom of starting thne and to accept the present award subclause, which provided fot 4 a.m. starting. Tho same facts as previously placed before the court still existed If there had been any change, evidence could be brought to show that the need for the earlier starting time became intensified as the percentage of wholesale sales and country deliveries by both city and country bakers increased. In asking for a reduction in the present penalty rates, the employers submitted that they were exorbitantly high. The men were already compensated for the 44-hour week in their ordinary wages and had longer holidays to compensate for night work. Ml Macdonald submitted figures showing that in other industries in which shift rates applied the rates were, much low* cr. Wages Offer. Although the employers considered that there, was no justification for any increase in wages in tho industry as the price of bread was fixed, they were prepared to offer 5/- a week in accordance with the court’s pronouncement, said Mr Macdonald. Tho reasons for this wore that tho present rate was a 10/a week increase over the 1931 rate tc compensate the men for working an extra four hours. The employers were agreeable to tho present rates or pay for youths who commenced work before 4 a.m., but suggested the introduction of a substantially lower rate for youths who did not start until 6 a.m. There was work to be done for juniors U bakehouses.

The employers objected to the restriction that female apprentices should not be employed if male apprentices were employed, Mr Macdonald said. It did not exist in other industries. Undue restretion of pastrycooks might force the complete introduction of female labour in some sections, whereas it was desirable from all points of view to retain journeymen on some work and journeywomen on other work. The employers wished to reduce ttTe high rates of wages for girls in the industry, for which it was contended that there was no justification. They were prohibitive and operated unfairly against tho employer of labour in the pastrycook and cake shop business as Opposed to the family businesses. The employers also asked that the rates for journeywomen bo reduced to threefifths of the journeymen’s rates. The present award rate was £4 2s 6d, but the employers asked that this should be reduced to £3 6s. Even at this it was higher than tho rates in other industries. No Evidence of Change. Mr Macdonald stated that all the facts set out had existed when the court previously framed the award. No evidence of any change had been brought by the workers’ union, whereas the evidence for the employers con firmed the existence of the same conditions. The employers were strongly opposed to the restrictive definitions claimed by the union. So far as junior labourers were concerned, it was con tended that the union was endeavouring to place an undue restriction on the industry, which was gradually expanding from the old craft stage to the more modern type of industry, but both the large and the small baker would always exist. There w r as unskill ed work to be done, and there was nc more reason why the baking industry should not be entitled to unskilled juniors than in any other industry. The employers also objected to retrospective pay. They had not in any way been responsible for the delay in making the award. The figures quoted by Mr Watson regarding an increase in the price of bread were wrong and were not supported by evidence. His remarks were principally confined to one district and were of a general nature and very misleading. For instance, said Mr Macdonald, in some cases the price of flour had increased and the price of bread had decreased.

Five witnesses were called in support of the employers’ case, following which the court reserved its decision.