CONCESSION GRANTED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 21 December 1937, Page 6

CONCESSION GRANTED

HOLIDAYS ON FULL PAY EMPLOYEES OF AUCKLAND ELECTRIC POWER BOARD (liy THle«raph - Press Asn«elallon) AUCKLAND, 20th December. Whether it should adhere strictly to the award or make special provision for granting some of its workmen holidays on full pay caused the Auckland Electric Power Board to have a long discussion to-day. It was staled that over 130 of the board's outside staff were not, under their conditions of employment, entitled to such a holiday, and if the board decided to depart from awards in force the concession of holidays would involve it in an expenditure of about £SOO. A letter was received from the secretary of the Auckland Electrical Workers’ Union, asking the board to grant, holidays on full pay to those men who were not under their awards covered by such a provision. The letter also staled that other power boards had granted their employees such holdiays although they were not bound to do so by awards. The chairman of the board, Mr S, J. Harbutt, said that if the board did not adhere to the awards it would not know where it was. Over 100 men on the board’s outside staff, such as linesmen. were affected. It was wrong to say that other power boards had decided to make the concession, since inquiries had shown that only one other power board was doing so. Two other local bodies had certainly done so. Mr E. H. Potter said that the matter should be further considered jn fairness to the men, and he moved that it be referred to the board in committee.

This was lost, and the Hon. T. Bloochvorth moved another amendment, that the men be granted holidays on full pay from Boxing Day until 4th January, and that men who would have to be kept for an emergency should receive an equivalent holiday later in the year. It was not right, .he said, that certain men who had hitherto been used to holidays should now be deprived of them.

The amendment was carried by six votes to five, and a question later whether the resolution was valid in face of the previous policy ruling that the board should adhere to all new awards was not upheld, because it was said no new award had come into operation. The award of the linesmen was not due for hearing until February, and other employees were not covered byawards.