BREWERY EMPLOYEES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23592, 31 August 1938, Page 7

BREWERY EMPLOYEES

CLAIMS FOR NEW AWARD SUGGESTION OF A BOYCOTT CHARGE MADE BY EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Aug. 30. Allegations that unfair tactics had been adopted by certain officials of the Auckland branch of the Federation of Labour in negotiations in the Auckland brewers and bottlers' dispute were made by Mr W. E. Anderson, the employers' representative, in the Arbitration Court today. Application was made by the Auckland Brewers, Wine and Spirit Merchants' Employees' Union for a new award. The only point in dispute related to wages. Mr N. V. Douglas, for the workers, said that in the last award wages were fixed at £4 5s a week, which was considered too low. In fact, the majority of the workers were being paid £4 9s 3d, the rate in 1922. Since the present claims were lodged three employers had raised the wages to £5 a week, and one had paid £5 7s 6d, plus a bonus. There was no reason why all the employers should not pay the wages sought by the union— £ 5 ss. Taking the figures from the New Zealand Year Book, Mr Douglas said that for every £1 paid in wages in 1935-36 a profit of £ 1 7s 6d was shown.

Mr Anderson said the employers were now prepared to pay £4 10s, an increase of ss. and had agreed to a week's annua] holiday and other concessions.

Mr Anderson said he would like to give a full explanation of the payment of £5 a week. He alleged that the president and secretary of the Auckland branch of the Federation of Labour had called upon him and said that if the dispute was not settled on their terms they would recommend the workers affiliated to the federation to drink the beer brewed by one particular company. A boycott took place. Representatives of the competing company had called on Mr Anderson at a later date and informed him that the bars of their hotels were practically empty, whereas those supplied by their competitor were well patronised. Subsequently, the company affected and other firms owning hotels paid £5 a week. Mr Anderson submitted that this action could not be lightly waved aside. It was not an isolated case.

Mr Justice O'Regan said that by law a boycott was actionable and wrong. There were any amount of cases on record where substantial damages had been granted. "I submit that in this case the negotiations have not been clean and above board," Mr Anderson said. "I ask the court to disregard entirely the rate of £ 5 a week, which has been obtained by a policy of blackmail and boycott." Mr Douglas submitted that Mr Anderson had made out no case, and had to introduce extraneous matter to bolster up his contentions. He asked the court to treat the question of a bovcitt for what it was worth, and ignore it. His Honor said the court would make an award as soon as possible.