DAIRY FACTORY WORKERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23352, 18 November 1937, Page 17

DAIRY FACTORY WORKERS

DOMINION AWARD SOUGHT ARBITRATION COURT PROCEEDINGS (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Nov. 17. Further evidence on behalf of the workers was called by Mr J. Roberts, of Wellington, in the Arbitration Court to-day in connection with the dairy workers’ application for a Dominion award. Francis Emmerson Forster, foreman packer of the Matangi Condensed Milk Factory, in the Waikato, said he received a weekly wage of £4 10s, and had 10 persons under him, including women, whose wages ranged from £1 16s to £2 weekly. They worked 45 hours a week. The men worked 52 hours a week, and received Is Od an hour, or £4 Is a week. The management had expressed the opinion that at least five of the men, apart from the first assistant, were skilled workers. The other men, he would say, excepting first-year men, were semiskilled. About 40 per cent, of the men were employed all he year round, and the others for about seven months. He considered his wages should be £-5 15s a week.

Raymond Silas Harris, first assistant at the New Zealand Co-operative Company’s dried milk factory at Waharoa, near Matamata, said his duties were to supervise the staff and the production of the commodity. The process was continual, and shift work was necessary. He considered the men on “ wash-up ” work should work shorter hours because of the unpleasant nature of the work. The employees worked 52 hours a week. There was no reason why the work should not be done in a day of eight hours, instead of sometimes nine, as at present. His wages were £5 3s 6d. Mr Roberts called evidence from each class of factory which the award was claimed to cover, namely, casein dried milk, condensed milk, and butter and cheese.

A witness stated that the classification for employees as set out in the union’s claim was necessary, since some factories were not members of the union previously. Witnesses also agreed that the hours were easily reducible if the staffs were slightly increased. The employers’ replies to the claims made by the representatives of the New Zealand Dairy Workers’ Union were submitted to the court. The case for the employers was presented by Mr W. E. Anderson. Mr Anderson said it was contended that the manufacture of butter, cheese and other produce in the factories was as much a part of the dairy industry as milking and separating. “ Increased costs cannot be passed on as in many other industries.” Mr Anderson said. The guaranteed price must average export price over two or three years. The Minister of Marketing (Mr W. Nash) had stated definitely that the account must be balanced, otherwise any shortage would have to be made up by taxation, which was quite high enough. Incidentally there was no guaranteed price for such lines as casein and dried milk. Except in the case of a few financially substantial farmers, the higher costs could not be faced. They would mean that labour could not be employed. The employers contended that the detailed classification proposed was merely a device on which to base the claims for higher wages, Mr Anderson said. They claimed that these workers did not specialise and were merely factory workers. Counter-proposals for the employers were submitted by Mr Anderson. Pie said that no justification existed for the shorter hours suggested by the workers. The employers suggested that the hours should be as follows: Butter factories: North Island — August 15 to March 15, 48 hours’ week; March 16 to August 14. 40 hours’ week: South .Island—September 15 to April 15, 48 hours; April 16 to September 14, 40 hours.

Cheese, casein, dried milk powder, and condensed milk factories: —North Island —August 14 to May 14, 52 hours; May 15 to June 16, 44 hours; June 17 to August 13, 38 hours; South Island — September 14 to June 14, 52 hours; June 15 to July 16, 44 hours; July 17 to September 13, 38 hours. In each case it was suggested that the hours should be worked over any six days of the week. The wages scale proposed by the employers was based on the 1931 award. Mr Anderson said, and there were minor alterations.

“Any increase in the factory costs will have to come off the payout to the farmer,” he added. Evidence for the employers was being heard when the court adjourned.