SHIFT WORK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23818, 20 November 1940, Page 13

SHIFT WORK

LOCAL BODY DEIYEES IMPORTANCE TO EMPLOYERS HAMILTON EXAMPLE QUOTED [by telegraph—OWN correspondent] WELLINGTON, Tuesday Local bodies bought expensive imported machinery and if it was to be used only 40 to 42 hours a week there would be a great economic loss, said Mr. It. Worley, borough engineer at Hamilton, giving evidence before the Court of Arbitration to-day in support of the employers' contention that provision for shift work should bo made in the New Zealand local body drivers' award. Mr. Worley said great advances were being made in machinery for shifting dirt and if the plant was not worked in shifts it would xjrobably be obsolete long before it was worn ont. He referred to a job in Hamilton, < the removal of a hill, on. which his council had employed drivers on shifts. It had been prosecuted for a breach of the award and had had to pay up to £l2 12s 6d a week to drivers working 42.J hours a week at night. As a result it had had to cease shift work and the completion of the job had been delayed. This had probably meant a loss of £20,000 to the people of Hamilton, because if shift work had been possible the land which was being cleared .would have been available for sale before the war. "1 am satisfied that if the employers had dropped their application for shift work wo could have had a settlement," declared Mr. F. C. Allerby, who appeared for the union. Shift work was an entirely new departure in this award, Mr. Allerby added, and the union could not accept the proposals in this direction. Mr. H. J. Bishop,- for the local bodies, said they were able to work their labourers on shift, and it was necessary that they should have the right to work the drivers working with them on shift also.