THE RING SYSTEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23206, 28 November 1938, Page 13

THE RING SYSTEM

SLAUGHTERING STOCK INTERPRETATION OF AWARD WESTFIELD DISPUTE DECISION. NUMBER OF MEN UNRESTRICTED "I have come to the conclusion, not without doubt, that the award is defective, in that provision is not mad© for some limitation of the number of workers employed on the system of slaughtering in operation at the Westfield works," stated the industrial magistrate, Mr. J. A. Gilmour, in an opinion issued at Wellington on Saturday on an application for interpretation of the New Zealand (except Westland) freezing workers' award. Mr. Gilmour said that, although the matter was brought before the Court in the form of a dispute, the application was actually one for the interpretation of a clause which stated that "on and after October 1, 1938, not more than 35 workers shall be employed on any chain." The real question for determination by the Court was whether this provision applied to the system of slaughtering in operation at the Westfield Freezingj Company'® works, where a ring system, as distinct from a chain method, was in use.

The ring was designed to operate as a larger capacity uniit, ,aiad the average output of each of the two conveyors at Westfield was stated to be 650 to 750 lambs an hour, Mr. Gilmour said. An average of 68 workers was employed on each, as against about ibalf that number on installations at other works. He considered that the award had not stated "in clear terms" that the restriction relating to the number of men employed was to apply to the ring system of slaughtering in operation at Westfield. Federation's Contention

When the dispute was argued before the magistrate, Mr. W. E. Sill, appearing for the New* Zealand Freezing; Workers' Federation, contended that under the system in operation at Westfield, while more than 35 men were involved, the principle was the same as. for a chain. There was no real difference between a ring and a chain. Tho term "ring" was one of recent usage. The crux of the question, said Mr. Sill, was whether the uystem used at Westfield involved the use of a mechanical chain. Hie claimed it as an - indisputable fact that such mechanical chain was the dominating feature of the system employed in the works. He submitted, therefore, that the general reading of the award should interpret any reference to chain as including ring. The Court of; Arbitration had taken into account the need of structural changes if the numbers on the present conveyor systems _at Westfield were reduced, -and had for that purpose given the firm until October 1. Reply for the Company Mr. C. G. Wilkin, secretary of the North and South Islands Freezing Companies' Association, said that tho West; field Freezing Company had the only sheep and lamb killing rings in New Zealand. The ring, as distinct from tho chain,, was the recognised system of killing in overseas countries. Since 1932 three systems of killing had been in operation, namely, the chain system, the ring system, and solo slaughtering. ' Two rings at Westfield were the equivalent of four chains, Mr. Wilkin continued. The essential difference, between the two systems of slaughtering was that the ring was to operate as a larger capacity unit, wnue the chain unit consisted of an endless chain. It was in most cases straight and its capacity was limited by the length of floor space available. The method of the ring system allowed th» endless chain to travel round corners and >up and down and across tho available floor space. He submitted, therefore, that the section of the award in question neither included nor had it ever been meant to include the rinK J "It appears," said Mir. Wilkin, "that this is a deliberate attempt by the union to scrap the ring system in NeW Zealand." i.