TRAMWAY ROSTER.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 593, 4 January 1916, Page 11

TRAMWAY ROSTER.

BOARD AND UNION. THE RECENT DISPUTE. Tiic following statement regarding the dispute between the Ohristclmrch Tramways Board ami the Tramway men's Union Ims been supplied l»y the board's manager: — In April last the Arbitration Court gave a new award affecting the majority of the workers in the Christehurcli Tramways Service. It contained a new provision respecting hours of work of motormen and conductors, viz.: A minimum of 96 lunirs per fortnight, averaging eight, hours per day for 12 days; the employees to work on the other two days in the fortnight if required; not less than seven hours to be given on any one day; and overtime to be paid when nine hours were exceeded. As this was an innovation, the award provided fur a review after six trial, the court stating that if the aggregate weekly earnings were reduced it would be disposed to revert to the old system of not less than eight hours each week day. Under the award the board had power to give each man one day off duty per week, but not necessarily on Sunday The first roster prepared gave an average of three days off duty per month. Notwithstanding an increase in the hourly rate of pay, the reduction iu hours worked consequent on the men being off duty these three days per month, with a reduction in overtime and Sunday 7 time as well, had the effeet of reducing the weekly earnings. The union therefore asked the board to coneel these "days off," maintaining that Sunday work should not be used in computing a fortnight's time. The union asked that the old svstem be reverted to.

The board agreed to cancel the "days off," thus providing more work for each man, but declined to alter the award conditions in other respects until a three months' trial had been experienced. A further review was then promised. As some misunderstanding evidently existed as to the board's intentions, it twice offered to confer with the union's representatives, but these offers were declined unless the board would promise to submit some fresh proposals. The union later on asked that any future conferences should be open to the Press, but, in view of the previously twice repeated refusals to confer without this condition being made, the board ignored the request. In explanation of the union's attitude, its secretary informed the court, at its recent sitting, that the executive had n« power to confer with the board, as requested by it, without receiving instructions from the union as a whole, and also said that the board simply received the union's representatives as a deputation and discussed their requests after they had withdrawn, instead of having "round-the-table" conference with reporters present. ■ Before the time for the promised review of the altered roster had elapsed the union filed an application to the court. The award of the court has now been given. It repeats the 9G hour fortnight clause, but embodies the alterations therein made by the board three months ago, with the further alteration that a minimum of four hours work must be given on Sundays insteaM of seven. It granted an increase of -]d per hour, to which the board tad expressed its willingness. A new clause was added—that when an employee working on a straight shift of less than eight hours is brought back for additional work, he shall be paid overtime for such extra work, providing that such work has not been necessitated by the failure of another employee to take up duties owing to sickness.