WAGES AND HOURS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19135, 2 October 1936, Page 13

WAGES AND HOURS

CLAIM BY UNIONS STATEMENTS DENIED ! That some trade union secretaries bad been making incorrect, statements to many employers regarding tho requirements of the new industrial legislation and existing awards, and had been making legally unjustifiable demands upon them, was alleged this week by the secretary of the Auckland Employers' Association, Mr. W. 15. Anderson. He said bis advice lo all employers was to take no notice of anv such claims until they had been checked by a competent authority.

(living examples of what had occurred, Mr. Anderson said that two local bodies. ;i county council and a, harbour board.'had been advised thai- they must observe a 40-hour week of five days. These two bodies were roil, parlies to any award, and the only new industrial legislation iili'eeting t'hem was the Finance Act-, which required them to pay wages on the same scale as in March, 1931. NOT AUTOMATICALLY BOUND The amending legislation enabled unions lo join local bodies as parties to award:;, and in such cases the bodies were entitled lo ask for special conditions and obtain awards suited to their requirements. They were not, as had been made out, automatically bound by awards. Other recent claims made upon such bodies were that they should pay for travelling lime and pay wages in working hours. In another instance a union official in a motor car had called on a country contractor and l told him that he must work a 40-hour Jive-day week. The contractor attempted to do so, but soon found that he could not possibly_carry out. his contract under such conditions. "Ho motored more than 150 miles to Auckland to consult me," said Mr. Anderson, "anil after going fully into I he. matter 1 round that, there was no award covering his employees and that (here was no obligation whatever upon him to do what, the union official bad advised."

Flo had luxl submitted to him, said "Mr. Anderson, n letter from an authority advising ;ui employer that he was required to pay n lad of 18 at the rate of £4 lis a week, in actual fact, the award wage for tlie lad was £2 -10 s , and moreover the employer- was not n parly to the award.