N.A. Power Board Fortnight's

Northern Advocate, 3 June 1939, Page 9

N.A. Power Board Fortnight's

OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSAL FOP. A UNIVERSAL FORTNIGHT’S HOLIDAY WITH PAY IN ADDITION TO STATUTORY HOLIDAYS WAS EXPRESSED BY THE NORTH AUCKLAND ELECTRIC POWER BOARD YESTERDAY.

Before the board was a circular from the Auckland Provincial Employers’ Association asking that the board consider terms of the proposed Holidays with Pay Bill which, it was said, was being brougnl forward at the next session of Parliament.

Principal provisions of the proposed Bill Were a fortnights holiday with full pay fer all employees. This fortnight would be irrespective cf public and statutory holidays.

£4OO Extra Cost

Included in the full pay would bo the cash equivalent of aboard and lodging cr other special allowances'. Under the Bill, the employer would be required to keep a holiday book detailing all matters in this regard.

Tco Hard on Workers? “I think we were perhaps a littlebit hard on the men,” commented Mr. E. G. Appleton, when referring to a previous meeting at which the holidays were agreed upon. Mr. W. Collins maintained that ho was not opposed to people getting the* holidays, but that he was opposed to the tone of the legislation that made it compulsory.

Certain sections cf the beard’s employees now receive a week’s holiday plus staWvtory holidays, and it was stated by the chairman. Mr. J. A. McLean, that the extra week would mean an additional £360 a year to the board’s costs.

“We should have the right to deal with cur employees as we think fit," he said, “and not be made to fall in with this national enactment.” “With falling prices and increasing costs, unemployment must result,' commented Mr. Coates.

“I move that ws oppose this,” declared Mr. R. Coates. .

“The men are quite well enough paid as it is, and appear to be satisfied with the holidays allowed them.”

Praise for Men

“In a short time the farmers will be up against it. and there will be moi’c unemployment. Can other industries stand it?” Member Supports Fortnight Mr. J. H. McCarroll contended that the men were entitled to the extra week. Outside workers, he said, did not get a full year’s work, as they often had broken time, thus cutting down on their finances. “We should not look at this from a selfish point of view,” he said. “We have to look 'at it from the point of view of cost to the consumer,” replied Mr. Coates. “It seems to imply that the board is not prepared to give any holidays to the men,” Mr. Nesbit contended. He moved an amendment to the effect that the board agree to giving the men 10 days’ holiday at Christmas, including the statutory holidays.

His suggestion was supported by Mr. F. Elliott, who maintained that the worker was receiving very liberal treatment. Mr. R. Nesbit, however, did not agree with the contentions put forward. “What is £4OO a year'to this board?” he asked. “I have heard nothing but praise for the wire gang in our area, and we have now the chance to do something for them. “I don’t expect to get members to support me, but the men are worthy of some consideration and should get a fortnight’s holiday along with ethers.” Mr. Coates contended that Mr. Nesbit’s information (which he gave concerning the holidays of Public Works men) was unfair, as the P.W.D. men were the most hardly dealt with.

On Mr. J. N. McCarroll drawing attention to the fact that the letter asked for suggestions and comments, the discussion lapsed, and, as there was no seconder to Mr. Nesbit’s amendment, it lapsed and the motion was carried. Mr. Nesbit and Mr. J. H. McCarroll recorded their votes against the motion.