SHORTER WEEK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26847, 11 August 1948, Page 6

SHORTER WEEK

THIRTY-FIVE HOURS DAIRY FACTORY WORKERS PROPOSAL FOR NEW AWARD P.A. WELLINGTON, Aug. 10. A 35-hour week with an ordinary working day of seven hours was proposed by the New Zealand Dairy Factories Employees’ Union in claims for a new Dominion dairy factories employees’ award handed to the employers in the Conciliation Council to-day. The present award for the industry provides for a 40-hour fiveday week with an ordinary working day of eight hours. The award covers all factories making butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, and casein, and affects all workers 1 except factory managers. The union sought wage increases varying from 16s 5d a week for general hands to £1 11s 3d a week for first assistants in butter factories and £2 Is 3d for first assistants in cheese factories. The new wage scale proposed for butter factories ranged from £7 5s a week for general hands to £9 5s a week for first assistants and £9 15s for foremen. The new scale proposed for cheese factories ranged from £7 5s a week for general hands to £9 15s a week for first assistants. Another new proposal was the payment of additional wage increases to the highest-paid classified workers in butter and cheese factories, the scale of payments to vary from 5s a week'to £.l 10s a week, according to tonnage output of factories. The union, also asked for the payment of adult male rates to all women workers except certain specified cases and for further provision to restrict the proportion of youths to adults employed. Technical Points Raised

The employers’ proposals contained little variation from the present award. Seven assessors from the dairy factory districts throughout New Zealand appeared for the employers. The workers were represented by three officials who were not prepared to proceed immediately in dealing with the claims because of a technical point raised concerning the filing of the claims and because in consequence of these points they had not brought a full bench of assessors to Wellington. The secretary of the Employees’ Union, Mr L. D. Robertson, said that two applications in the dispute were lodged on the same, day, July 29—one 4 from the union and one from the. employers. He notified the Conciliation Commissioner on August 2 of the dispute as created by the union but on August 3 "he received a completed set of papers from the Clerk of Awards for a dispute as created by the employers for which the sitting date fixed was August 10. He could not carry the matter further as there were two sets of claims. He therefore proposed that the council should decide now which was the applicant party, the Workers’ Union or the employers. Mr J. R. Hanlon, for the employers, said that the employers took action to file claims because they feared a delay by the union in bringing the matter on and they did not want the dispute to extend into the busy season. The union secretary was promptly informed of the employers’ decision and had six weeks in which to arrange for the appearance of assessors in Wellington. The employers, having already filed their claims, refiled them on July 29 because the first papers were not correct in every detail as required by the regulations, but the union had ample notice. It was absurd for the union not to agree to proceed, said Mr Hanlon. He would say that failure on the part of the workers to go on could only be construed as a means of extending the dispute until later in the year. The Conciliation Commissioner. Mr C. L. Hunter, of Auckland, said that the council could not proceed, but could decide which party’s claims were to be received as the actual claims in the dispute and which as counter-claims. The commissioner suggested that as the union had always been the applicant party in the past the employers could agree to concede that position to the union on this occasion. Fear of Undue Pressure Mr W. N. Perry, Cambridge: Twice in the last two seasons the matter has drifted on into the busy season and the big stick has been held over our heads in the dairy industry. I will not be a party to that happening again. We don’t want to be jockeyed into that position this time, and that is why we filed the claims. Mr J. Ross, for the union, said that an adjournment last year was taken at the employers’ request.' The employers’ representatives conferred among themselves and later announced that, subject to agreement being reached for an early sitting of the council, they would allow the union to proceed as the applicant. The employers would not withdraw their claims, but would hold them in abeyance. They asked the right, also, to amend their counter-claims during the sitting of the council. This offer was accepted by the union representatives, and September 6 was fixed as the date for the next sitting.