EXEMPTION SOUGHT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 843, 11 December 1929, Page 11

EXEMPTION SOUGHT

FREEZING WORKERS’ AWARD THREE APPLICATIONS HEARD Exemption from the freezing works and related trades award was sought in the Arbitration Court today by three firms, R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., Auckland, the Feilding Bacon Co., Ltd., and the Dairy Producers Freezing Co., Wellington. The applications were opposed by Mr. W. E. Sill, on behalf of the union, who said that the Feilding Bacon Co. was extensively engaged in the “bobby” calf trade. The court was informed that the company had dealt with 30,000 “bobby” calves at the rate of 7d a calf in the last three years, whereas the Feliding Freezing Company had to pay 2s 2d an hour for boning work. Mr. Anderson, for the Bacon Company, said that the firm was not concerned with any award covering the slaughtering of stock. He claimed that the company put through a small amount of “bobby” calves, compared with the principal business of bacon manufacture. If the firm were brought under the award it would be at a disadvantage with similar smaller firms. Mr. Justice Frazer remarked that the Feilding BAcon Company carried on a considerable “bobby” calf trade, the firm apparently not being satisfied to carry on its legitimate bacon business. The application was adjourned pending the receipt of information from the employers. The principal ground for exemption of R. and W. Hellaby, Ltd., advanced by Mr. F. A. Hellaby, was that his firm’s w'ork was continuous, and not seasonal like that of freezing works. He pointed out that his firm was not engaged principally in freezing meat for export, but said he was agreeable, however, to the men handling frozen meat for the firm being brought under the award. Mr. Still contended that as Hellaby, Ltd., was competing with the freezing companies in subsidiary work such as fellmongering, freezing and tallow refining, it should be governed by the award. Mr. Anderson said that it was only because Hellaby, Ltd., was doing a small amount of freezing for export, the union was able to apply for its inclusion in the award. Mr. Justice Frazer remarked that the trouble apparently arose over the export business, otherwise the union could not have asked for its inclusion, irrespective of what was done with by-products. The court decided to consider the question. Supporting the application of the Dairy Producers’ Freezing Company, Mr. Anderson said that no slaughtering was done, the firm only handling storing and shipping, dairy and fruit produce of all kinds. On occasions small quantities of killed, dressed lamb were kept in cool store till required. He agreed that the company could be made a party, only so far as the men handling the meat were concerned. Mr. Sill said that the firm was reconditioning meat sent down from Auckland for export purposes. Consideration was deferred until information was obtained concerning the quantities of dairy produce and fruit handled was obtained.