CONCILIATION AGREEMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 16 July 1932, Page 9

CONCILIATION AGREEMENT

WELLINGTON

COURT TO DECIDE ON CLAUSE.

COMMISSIONER CONGRATULATORY.

FOSTERING .SPIRIT OF UNIONISM.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night. After a two-day sitting in the Conciliation Council the parties to the Wellington industrial district electrical workers’ dispute reached an understanding late tins afternoon. Fourteen ef t'he fifteen clauses of tho proposed new award were agreed to and it was decided that the remaining one, a preference clause, should be referred to the Arbitration Court.

The almost unanimous agreement was described by the Commissioner, Mr. W. Newton, as a noteworthy one in that it promised to become the first award made by the court in such circumstances under the amended Arbitration Act. The assessors on both sides agreed that the occasion was one for mutual congratulation.

The principal points in the agreement, which -has been signed and will be submitted to the Arbitration Court, are a-s follow; —

Wages are to be Is lOjid per hour (2s Id less 10 per cent.) This was a compromise between the employers’ offer of Is lOd and the employees’ proposal for 2s 4d. The previous rate was 2s 3d less 10 per cent. Travelling expenses and time are to be -paid. In the case of suburban work the distance agreed upon has been extended by one mile compared with the previous award. The hours of work are to be 44 a week with the stipulation that nine hours a day may 'be worked with a maximum of 44 a week.

When the preference clause was reachMr. G. C. Camp for the employers entered a formal protest against it. As an alternative to the threatened deadlock Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, of the Employers’ Association, speaking as the employers’ agent, proposed that in view of the agreements reached on the other clauses the preference question should be left to the court to decide. Mr. H. E. Swindell for the employees asked what guarantee the workers had that the employers would not press for the abolition of preference when the case reached the court. Mr. Mountjoy and Mr. G. Lauchlan for the employers gave their personal assurance to the employees’ assessors that abolition of preference would not be urged. “Speaking for myself,” said Mr. Mountjoy, “I think you may have no fear on that score.”

The employees’ assessors then agreed and a motion that the agreement as it stood be referred to the court and that tho -preference clause be left to the jurisdiction of the court was carried -unanimously. Air. Newton congratulated the assessors on the manner in which they had handled their respective cases. “One has to remember,” he said, “that the amendment to the Act has changed very greatly the whole position of conciliation, and it is pleasing that the assessors in this case have recognised the change.”. Air. A. Curlew said that the workers’ assessors had done their best to keep alive the spirit of -unionism. “In reply to Mr. Curlew,” said Mr. Lauchlan, “I would like to say that there is nothing I would regret more than to see an attempt to Joi 11 unionism. Unionism is as necessary for the employer as for the employee.”