ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21018, 6 May 1930, Page 15

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHEMISTS ASSISTANTS* AWARD. The Arbitration Court was engaged yesterday with an application by the Dunedin Retail Chemists’ Assistants’ Union for a new award. Mr Justice Frazer presided, having, associated with him Messrs At L. Montoith and W. Cecil Prime. Mr A. S. Cookson appeared on behalf of the employers, and Mr J. Robinson represented the union. The dispute in respect to the award had previously been the subject of negotiations in the Conciliation Council, where an agreement was reached in respect to only unimportant items. The matters referred to the court were:—Hours of work, overtime, holidays, wages, definitions, and the term of the award. The union’s claims included increased wages, particularly for qualified men, extra holidays, overtime rates for work done on stated holidays, altered classifications and definitions, and provisions in respect to casual work. The wages Suggested for qualified assistants were £6 15s per w r eek, compared with £4 10s at present, and the union asked for £5 10s for unqualified men instead of the present £4 ss. The employers did not admit the claims of the union, and submitted as a counter proposal the existing award, with a few alterations, such as reduced wages for unqualified men and the payment of double time only when employees work on Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day. In respect to four of the sis other holidays provided for, it was submitted that four hours’ work should be paid for at ordinary rates, while time-and-a-half should be paid for the remaining two days. THE UNION’S CASE. Mr Robinson, in bis address to the court, said that the union had agreed to withdraw its claim for a 44-hour week on account of the inconvenience that might thus be caused to the public. He was asking, however, that the 48-hour provision should be written into the award together with the times of opening and closing. In respect to overtime, the union asked that it should constitute all time worked in excess of ordinary working hours, and that Sunday work should not .be included in the weekly 48 hours, but paid for at double rates.’ Other centres did not have Sunday chemists services, and it was felt thev were not necessary in Dufiedin. Speaking of wages. Mr Robinson said the qualified chemist had neither the wages nor the status of the labourer. Despite the arduous study involved he got no more than the ordinary able-bodied labourer earning Is lOd per hour. Mr Robinson referred at length to the training of chemists’ assistants, and stressed the importance of the present-day dispenser in view of the fact that few doctors now did their own dispensing. He considered that the wages paid to the assistants indicated a poor appreciation of _ the importance of the work.. The union asked for two extra holidays—Easter Saturday and Anniversary Day—making a total of XI holidays annually, apart from annual leave, ou which point the parties were agreed. Mr Robinson concluded with a reference to the immense amount of work entailed by the examinations required for qualification, He thought the court would agree that the wages offered were not in keeping with the training demanded. Evidence was given by assistants in respect to the hours of work at present provided for Under the award-, and also on the subject of the payment and duties of qualified and unqualified assistants. ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYERS. Mr Cookson prefaced his address with a reference to the fact that for the first time since an award was made the parties bad failed to agree. In respect to overtime he said it was unnecessary to deal with it if the hours of work were un* altered, since all overtime was done on holidays, and was provided for. The employers objected to the two extra holidays, particularly Easter Saturday, and based their objection on the fact that chemists’ assistants were allowed two weeks’ annual leave on full pay compared with one week allowed general shop assistants. The union’s claims for Wages were excessive. The present classification of assistants and scale of wages were agreed to in 1926 in order to improve the status of Jthe registered, qualified assistants. Th e employers’ counter-proposals provided for a 5s reduction per week for unqualified assistants, and they were quite serious in saying that business to*day justified a reduction. They also wished the weekly half-holiday for assistants reinserted in the award, and in the matter of definition asked for the retention of > those in the existing award. In conclusion, Mr Cookson referred to the objection of the union to the exemption of the Associated Chemists, Ltd. (All-night Pharmacy) from the award, and said he could hot understand why there should be any disagreement on that point. Evidence was given by several city chemists on the subject of the work and qualifications that ate expected of qualified and registered chemists. His Honor pointed out to Mr Robinson that the union was merely inviting employers to pass by ' qualified men in favour of unqualified men by making such a big difference between the two classes of men. An employer would be quite' within his rights if he preferred an unqualified man with years of experience to a young man just qualified. He would certainly save himself a lot of money. It was risky for the qualified man, and he would suggest that the parties should get their heads together and try and evolve another system of classification. Mr Robinson thereupon intimated that the union would agree to the present classification of workers while adhering to its wages claims, His Honor said the court would consider the matter before giving its decision.