NO PEREMPTORY DIRECTION

Southland Times, Issue 22948, 22 July 1936, Page 4

NO PEREMPTORY DIRECTION

The Arbitration Court GRANTING OF 40-HOUR WEEK MASTER PRINTERS’ CONTENTION (United Press Association.) Wellington, July 21. Reference to the position of the Arbitration Court in applications for extensions of the 40-hour week was made in the Court to-day by Mr E. W. Clarkson, secretary of the Federated Master Printers’ Association, who submitted that there was no peremptory direction to reduce the working hours in factories to 40. He said that the employers suggested that the project of a universal 40-hour week was inspired by an abstract conception of social reform, and between this idealistic theory and its application the Court was interposed. Mr Clarkson submitted that the legislation was not a peremptory direction to the Court to reduce the working hours in factories to 40 and that the discretion given to the Court was not limited, but might be exercised whenever the conditions of employment in an industry were brought under review by the presentation of proposals for a new award. Mr Clarkson submitted that limitation to 44 hours was the only peremptory direction to the Court. By other enactments the Legislature had fixed the hours for shops at 44. In other occupations it was considered that 40 hours would be an ideal arrangement, but it had placed on the Court the responsibility of determining whether that ideal could be applied in practice. He indicated that the case was being presented, not only in confidence that the representations were based on incontestable facts, but also in the firm belief that the Legislature did not contemplate the undermining of industries of such magnitude and importance, but sincerely intended that the Court should examine the facts presented to it with a view to determining whether it was necessary to relieve these industries from restrictions that would prevent them from carrying on their operations profitably. Production of Newspapers. Mr J. M. Hardcastle, representing the newspaper proprietors, pointed out that the whole cycle of processes in producing a newspaper had to begin and finish every day. Portions of an edition might be produced in advance, but, generally, every edition was the finished achievement of a single day’s effort. He outlined the way in which the news was gathered from all parts of the world and prepared for the information of the public, and said that newspapers had to be produced with regular punctuality, because, no matter how remarkable the day’s news might be, the value of the newspaper containing it would be utterly destroyed if it were not punctually distributed to the public. The necessary punctuality was secured by every department working to a time-table and the total time available was so restricted that there was never more than a few minutes in reserve. When the need arose for an extra effort workers readily responded. The proposed reduction of hours by 20 minutes a day was far greater than the reserve available at present. Even if the margin of reserve time could be restored by installing extra machines and employing extra men, there was no evidence that such a solution would be practicable. The extra outlay for machinery was not practicable in some offices, and in many cases, the floor space was not available. No Justification Claimed.

The employers submitted that the proposed reduction of hours was not justified by consideration of the physical or social welfare of the employees, that it was not justified as a means of increasing employment and that the principal effect would be to increase the wages of the workers, who already were more highly paid than the workers in any other industry, thus imposing a serious burden upon. the industry, said Mr Hardcastle. Two questions had to be decided before the proposed application of the legislation to the newspaper industry could be confirmed. The first was: “Was there any rational justification for granting the workers in the industry a bonus on their wages, equivalent to the payment at overtime rates for 120 hours or more each year?” The employers submitted that there was not. The second question was: “Was there any rational justification for imposing upon the I employers in the industry an additional burden of costs already inflated by other statutory provisions?” They submitted that there was not. No newspaper could extend its circulation indefinitely and limits were set upon its activities by physical factors. The costs of newspaper production had risen rapidly in recent years and the profits from newspaper enterprise had been drastically reduced. The newsaper proprietors submitted that their industry had a just claim to the relief which the Legislature had empowered the Court to give. Application was made for a 44-hour week and for the removal of other limitations prescribed by Section 3 of the Act. Evidence about the position of newspaper companies and the requirements of newspaper publishing was called. Commercial Factories. On behalf of 95 occupiers of factories engaged in commercial printing and eight engaged solely in the production of manufactured stationery, Mr Clarkson produced evidence to show the embarrassed state of the industry and that a 40-hour week would be quite impracticable. Mr C. H. Chapman, M.P., and Mr K. Baxt.r opposed the application on behalf of the workers and produced statistics to show that the industry was capable of expansion. The Court reserved its decision. Mr Clarkson briefly outlined the employers’ case for a 44-hour week in the photo-engraving section of the printing industry, and said that a vast amount of overtime would be necessary under a 40-hour week. The Court’s decision was reserved. At the suggestion of Mr A. W. Croskery, appearing for the New Zealand Journalists’ Association, the Court granted an adjournment of an application for an amendment to that part of the Journalists’ Agreement relating to hours of work.

If there is no room at Wellington, for a fixture, hearing will take place in Auckland.