JOURNALISTS’ UNION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11307, 5 September 1922, Page 6

JOURNALISTS’ UNION

THE WELLINGTON DISPUTE HEARING BEFORE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER. AGREEMENT NOT ARRIVED AT. ‘ "The ’ Wellington “ Journalists’ Union dispute was heard before the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr W. H. Newton) yesterday morning. Mr C. H. Chapman was agent, _ and Messrs G. P. Natusch, M. A. Kelly, and L. Freeman acted as assessors for the union; while Messrs C. Earle, L. A. Berry, G. H. Dixon, and J. Parker represented the Wellington newspaper proprietors. Air Fred. Pirani objected to the citing of the Press Association on four grounds: (1) That no claims were ’received by the Association till August ‘29th, though they were dated August 21st; (2) that the amended were only received by the Press Association Inst Friday; (3) that the Press Association was not a Press Association, and not a Wellington institution but a Dominion institution; (4). and that . the Press Association was nqt an institution run for profit; there were no dividends, and not likely to be. If anything at all, the PreGs Association was a combination of newspapers. The management consisted of a board of directors, and how the union could expect the board to meet between the Friday and that day beat him. Also he pointed out the ridiculous nature of the demands, according to which the typist and the office boy would be junior reporters at £7 a week. As a matter of fact, too, there was no dispute with the Press Association, and it had not been a party to the numerous conferences held, and had not- refused’ any claims made upon it. .* Mr Chapman said that it would be a simple matter to have the Press-Asso-ciation added as parties after the award was made. But it would be better. he thought, to have the Press Association representatives present to voice its opinions on any provisions in the award,that affected it. Mr Pirani pressed hi 3 objection, stating that the board of’ directors had had no opportunity of considering the matter; and-the Press Association was 'accordingly "stnick out" from list of parties to the dispute. ,« ; The Cori)|BjSsioner said that, he thought that the parties’ to the dispute should have, no difficulty In .'coming toian agreement, with the two re-cent-siwa'rds ;at ; Auckland and Christchurch :to go upon. , Air Chapman said that the principal difference between them was in regard to wages; if the Christchurch award was taken, and some slight addition toade to the wages provided, he' was Pertain that it would be acceptable to the union assessors. He wanted to make it quite clear that the wages the union ' was asking , for was apart ; altogether from bonuses. The union' wanted to get rid. of the bonus system. Mr Earle said that the attitude of the employers, was that the court;'had made two awards, at Auckland: and Christchurch,, and the Wellington nbiv&p'dpei-'* proprietors ‘were quite’- pre- . pared to accept the conditions in those two awards. Unf ort una tejy, however, they- had lidt h'Seir atflp to qiiite agree with the unions.

Air Chapman said that the union was not. prepared to accept the conditions in their entirety, particularly with gard--Mr-Earle!?ils point? Mr .Chapman:. No.; but the main point. 1 With regard_to the hours question, Mr Chapman said that,' while the Auckland and Christchurch awards provided for a 48-hour week, the present agreement in Wellington was for a 44hour week, and the union wished that to be continued.

Mr Earle skid 'that the proprietors would agree to that if the other conditions in the agreement were maintained. But it seemed that the- union wished to keep the conditions that suited the union and leave out those that suited the employers. Mr Natusch said that if the proprietors would meet the union in regard to pay, the union would be prepared to meet them by accepting & 4Kbour week. Mr Earle said that matters had been very well threshed out between the parties at the various conferences, and had got down, to a fine point. The employers saw no reason why there should be any difference at all between the awards at Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington as to. hours of work and pay. That was the position. Unless, therefore, they could come to an agreement on broad lines, there was no chance of further agreement being reached by the council. The Commissioner said that, unless strong reasons were given, the court would probably not vary the conditions as between Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. Mr Chapman: We think we could always supply reasons for higher wages in Wellington. The Commissioner remarked that only on one occasion that he could remember had the court ever taken that view. Mr Kelly Baid that the union desired to establish the fact that the work in Wellington was, to a large extent, more responsible, needing greater reliability and a better quality of work than in the other oentres of the Dominion. Mr Earle said that the employers could hardly agree with that view. The more general reporting there was to be done, the easier, in their opiniog, was the work for the_ reporters. The hardest and most trying work from the reporters’ point of view was hunting for news. He did not think that there was any chance of coming to an agreement on the terms suggested and the conditions in the claims. Mr Chapman: What are the main conditions in the claims that are held to weigh against the increased rate of wages asked ? S Mr Earle: The general holiday clauses and the hours of work. The proportion of workers is also wrong. After a brief adjournment for consultation, compromises, were arrived at in regard to certain mines- clauses. But no agreement could 'be reached in re epeefc of general holidays, houns, salaries. and overtime; and these, accordingly, were referred to the court.