Dairy Factory Workers Claim 35-Hour Week

Northern Advocate, 11 August 1948, Page 6

Dairy Factory Workers Claim 35-Hour Week

WELLINGTON, Wed. (P.A.).—A 35-hour week with an ordinary working day of seven hours was proposed--by the New Zealand Dairy Factories’ Employees’ Union in claims for a new award, handed to the employers in conciliation council yesterday. The present award for the industry provides. for a 40-hour, five-day week, with an ordinary working day of eight hours.

The award covers all factories making butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk and casein, and affects all workers except factory managers. The union sought wages increases varying from 16/5 a week for general hands to £l/11/3 a week for first assistants in butter factories and £2/1/3 for first assistants in cheese factories. The scale proposed for butter factories ranged from £7/5/- a week for general hands to £9/5/- a week for first assistants, and £9/15/- for foremen.

For cheese factories, the proposals ranged from £7/5/- a week for general hands to £9/15/- a week for first assistants.

Another new proposal was the payment of additional increases to the highest paid classified workers on butter and cheese factories, the scale of payments to vary from 5/- a week to £l/10/- a week, according to the tonnage output of factories. The union also asked for the payment of adult male rates to all women workers except certain specified cases, and for further provision to restrict the proportion of youths to adults employed. The employers’ proposals contained little variations from the present award. Seven assessors from dairy factory districts throughout New Zealand appeared for the employers. LODGED SAME DAY The workers were represented by three officials, who were not prepared to proceed immediately in dealing with the claims because of technical points raised concerning the filing of claims, and because in consequence of these points, they had not brought a full bench of assessors to Wellington.

The secretary of the Employers’ Union (Mr L. D. Robertson) said that two applications in dispute were lodged on the same day, July 29—one from the union and one from the employers. He notified the conciliation commissioner on August 2 of the dispute as created by the union, but on August 3 he received a complete set of papers from the clerk of awards for a dispute as created by the employers, for which the sitting date fixed was August 10.

He could not carry the matter further, as there were two sets of claims. He therefore proposed that the council should decide now who was the applicant party, the union or the employers. PROMPTLY INFORMED Mr J. R. Hanlon, for the employers, said the employers took action to file claims because they feared delay by the union in bringing the matter on and they did not want the dispute to extend into the busy season. The union secretary was promptly informed of the employers’ decision, Mr Hanlon added, and had six weeks in which to arrange for the appearance of assessors in Wellington.

The employers, having already filed their claims, refilled them on July 29 because the first papers were not correct in every detail as required the regulations, but the union had ample notice.

It was absurd for the union not to agree to proceed, said Mr Hanlon. He would say that failure on the

part of the workers to go on could only be construed as a means of extending the dispute until later in the year. .

The conciliation commissioner (Mr C. L. Hunter) said the council could not proceed, but could decide which party’s claims were to be received as the actual claims in the dispute and which as counter-claims.

He suggested that as the union had always been the applicant party in the past the employers could agree to concede that position to the union on this occasion. Mr W. N. Perry (Cambridge): Twice in the last two seasons the matter has drifted into the busy season and the big stick has been held over our heads in the dairy industry. I will not be a party to that happening again. We do not want to be jockeyed into that position this time, and that is why we filed claims. DATE FIXED Mr J. Ross, for the union, said an adjournment last year was taken at the employers’ request. The employers’ representatives conferred among themselves and later announced that, subject to agreement being reached for an early sitting of the council, they would allow the union to proceed as the applicant. The employers would not withdraw their claims, but would hold them in abeyance.

They asked the right also to amend their counter-claims during the sitting of the council.

This offer was accepted by the union representatives and September 6 was fixed as the date for the next sitting.