A WAGE QUESTION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 64, Issue 4560, 15 April 1942, Page 5

A WAGE QUESTION

PAYMENT OF THE APPROPRIATE RATE BOROUGH COUNCIL DECISION Mr T. Potter, organiser of the Auckland General Labourers’ Union, waited on the Te Awamutu Borough Council at its meeting on Monday night following correspondence which had passed between his Union and the Council. Claims had been made for the payment of retrospective rates of pay to some employees whose varied classes of work had been beyond the definitions of the General Labourers’ Award. It was indicated that some workmen had occasionally performed work as carpenters or painters and should be paid accordingly. Mr Potter said he had discovered in Te Awamutu conditions usually found in the smaller boroughs when the men were called upon to do a fairly wide range of work. The award had expressly included a clause to provide for specialist work. In Te Awamutu the men had painted the baths, and their time while on that work should have been paid as painters. Other men had made .concrete boxing and should have been classed as carpenters when so engaged. Drain-laying work was similarly Classed. The variation clause in the award had been framed to provide for men working in these specialist duties. The Council would appreciate the position and could be assumed to wish to deal fairly. The Union had been inundated with letters not strictly within the scope of the Union and it was hoped that the Council would not tolerate such circumstances. The Borough Solicitors submitted an opinion based on the belief that the law would require a man to be substantially engaged in a given class of work. Mr Potter said he wondered where these solicitors got their ideas from, and suggested that the Council should get the opinion of the Labour Department. He contended that if a labourer did one hour’s driving, he would require to be paid one hours wage as a driver and not as a labourer. . The Unions had asked that one hour’s driving in any one week would qualify for a week’s drivers’ pay, but the Court had ruled that out. But hours actually worked had to be paid for at the appropriate rate. The foreman (Mr R. H. Close), in reply to a question, said practically no kerbing had been done during the past 18 months, so that the amount of carpentering on the boxing was negligible. About six hours for one man and two days for another man would cover all the boxing time. It was really very slight. As painters at the baths, three men for three and ahalf days would be the maximum. These things were slight and hardly worth mention. But in his opinion the men had not had a fair deal on tar sealing. A general -discussion ensued on the allocation of work and the rates of remuneration paid to the men. The Union intimated that there was more concern for the future and a claim was not proposed for back pay, provided an amicable arrangement could be made for the future. In the case of men who had ceased in the Council’s employ, back pay would be expected so as to adjust the rates to what should have been paid. Finally, after some further discussion, it was agreed to adjust the rates to the amount suggested by the Union ranging from £5 5s to £5 10s per week, including the cost of living bonuses. It was further agreed that 35s be offered in adjustment of back pay by workmen who had left the Council’s employ: This was accepted. The Council further decided that in future tar sealing overalls be provided. The foreman was also instructed that in future he record the time of any men engaged on other than general labourers work, and that the wage appropriate to that work be paid.