ENFORCING AWARDS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18619, 15 July 1930, Page 12

ENFORCING AWARDS.

RECENT PROSECUTIONS DISCUSSED. ALLEGATIONS OF TYRANNY. Considerable concern is manifested among certain employers over the facts revealed in connection with the prosecution of Mrs Elizabeth Jenkins, for a breach of an award. In view of comment which had been made, a representative of this journal made some inquiries yesterday, and elicited the information that whereas it was recognised that certain laws are requisite for the regulation of conditions governing employment, there are many such regulations framed, the interpretation of which requires the greatest care and consideration. It is held by employers that awards made by the Arbitration Court are couched in such language as to be incapable of proper construction or interpretation. It is thought by some that as matters stand it is possible for employers to be harassed by officials, whose reading of awards may be entirely different from those most vitally interested. It was contended also that this difference of opinion caused friction, and created irksome conditions, which did not tend to improve relations between employer and employee. Furthermore, it was alleged that in businesses handling perishable goods, while an Inspector’s interpretation of awards was insisted upon, there was always a great risk of considerable loss to the employer as a result of damage or loss of trade. The employers’ contention was that a commonsense view should be taken of the meaning of ' what are now regarded by them as arbitrary clauses in awards. This, they say, would make for a better understanding between those engaged in industry. In each instance it was held that the Labour Department is responsible for any misunderstanding that exists, and that Inspectors are simply carrying out the instructions given them by the head office of the Department. Heart Office Dictum. The president of the Timaru Employers’ Association, Mr C. W. Wood, referring to the Jenkins case, said that he desired to make it clear that, from inquiries before the case was heard, they were satisfied that the local Inspector merely carried out his duties, and acted only on instructions from his head office. "Like every other employer of labour,” said Mr Wood. ‘‘l find myself hampered, restricted, and harassed by Government regulations, labour laws and unnecessary interference. On every hand we are being filched, mulcted, taxed, licensed, and bandied about to a point past eridurance.” Continuing. Mr Wood said: “It is quite patent that our country is so loaded with unnecessary and hampering legislation, that the near future must see" a general revolt from most trying conditions. I have seen a number of balance sheets of late, and, without exception, overhead and administration costs have increased to an alarming extent in proportion to turnover. An analysis proves only too clearly that this is due to hampering and restrictive conditions, taxation, licenses. fees, etc., giving rise to serious thought as to the wisdom of continuing a state of affairs responsible fojsuch conditions. I do not hesitate to state that, if I could only get fifty employers of standing to support me. I would defy Government Departments, regardless of consequences, to penalise us any further.” Tax on Industry. “Weak Governments,” said Mr Wood, “rail-sitters in power, highly-paid officials hanging on to their jobs at all cost, are just ruining our beautiful country. The workers defy the Government with impunity. It is known that the Government can neither extract fines from them nor send them to gaol in default of payment. An employer has to pay any fine imposed upon him, or submit to his property being distrained on. Further, in cases of joint breaches of an award, the employer is fined, say, £2, while an employee is fined 2/6, even when the latter has been the direct cause of the breach. It is gratifying to know that the present Prime Minister has grasped the fact that business and industry have been deteriorating as the result of oppressive restrictions, and that the Civil Service is over burdened and unwieldy, and almost beyond control. Our social services controlled by the Government have burdened employers who have to find the money neeessary to carry on our industrial activities. Primary and secondary industries are at a standstill. After 35 years of business life in Timaru, and having been harassed by the Arbitration Court’s irksome findings and by all kind of labour legislation during that period, I hold definitely strong opinions on this question, and I am not afraid to express them.” Multiplicity of Awards. Discussing the recent prosecution, Mrs Jenkins said their business came under the scope of no fewer than three awards. First there was the Shops and Offices; then the tea rooms, and the bakehouse awards. “How can an employer be expected to carry oh a business such as ours, and at the same time find opportunity to study closely the intricacies of the different clauses in each of these awards,” said Mrs Jenkins. “The cake and pastry business is of a fluctuating character, and we cannot possibly know two days together what orders will be received. We have experienced time and again late orders coming in, necessitating working for a longer period than that prescribed by the award. When these orders come in, we are not in a position to place our hands on extra hands at a moment’s notice, and we are compelled to make a verbal application to the • Inspector for permission to work overtime. This, according to the Act, is not sufficient. We are expected to apply in writing. How can we, at the eleventh hour so to speak, be expected to drop the organisation of our business to cope with the rush of orders, in order to write a letter to the Inspector? Again, assuming we were able to do so, there is always the possibility that the Inspector will not be at his office, consequently we would not receive his reply until he returns, which very likely would be too late for our requirements. Consider then the position in which we would find ourselves. We have orders to execute. If we fail owing to the absence of a permit from the Inspector to work overtime, then we lose business. We are caught between two fires. Either we must refuse to accept orders, or we must work overtime in order to keep faith with our customers, and thus render ourselves liable to a prosecution for breaking what amounts to a most unreasonable law.”

Mrs Jenkins next referred to the matter of an Inspector being empowered to call in a constable when visiting a factory for the purpose of securing evidence respecting any breach of an award. “Just imagine the state of feelings of girls engaged in a bakehouse, when they are confronted by a constable in uniform and an Inspector. The oven is full of cakes, and in the flurry caused by the visitation by the officers, the goods are neglected, and cakes ace burnt or damaged fey over-

baking. This entails a serious loss which we,have to bear, and at the same time be prosecuted for breach of a law which we consider unreasonable and unjust. We could employ part time assistants during rush hours, but the law says these can only be employed from 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. We have no need for additional help during these hours, but if the law permitted it, we could do with extra assistance from 2.30 p.m. till 4.30 p.m. The law says no to this, and a person who could well do with the extra money is denied the privilege of getting some extra work. We tried to fight this question in the Arbitration Court, but this objectionable feature is still in the award. One would think that everything would be done to encourage employers to relieve this acute position, but instead we are hemmed in all round by legislation.” Private Hotels. Mr W. Hutchison said his knowledge of Arbitration Court awards was limited to that governing employment in private hotels. He had not, however, been able to bring himself to regard them as anything but a collection of badly conceived, and in many cases, stupidly drafted regulations, quite impossible of being carried out in their literal sense. He had been struggling with Arbitration Court awards as affecting private hotels for the past 18 years, and for several years as an assessor on the Conciliation Council, and he was still learning. “As an instance of what I mean,” said Mr Hutchison, “I would point out that when the Arbitration Court sat in Timaru a fortnight ago, His Honour. Mr Justice Frazer, told me from his seat on the bench that a porter could attend to kitchen fires. It was part of his work to do. Now our award, although it sets out everything that he must be provided with, down even to the amount of cubic feet of fresh air he has to breathe when asleep, this document makes no mention whatsoever as to what he is to do for all this. Mr Justice Frazer says, however, that he can attend to fires, but then all New Zealand didn’t hear him say it, and, therefore, they have to fall back on a copy of the award; and this is what the award says: ‘For the purpose of this clause, a worker shall be deemed to be employed about a kitchen and scullery, if he or she is employed attending to boilers and kitchen fires.’ Now it would not matter what name the employee is called by, were it not that if he is called a kitchen hand up goes the wages of the whole kitchen staff; in the case of some ratings nearly a pound a week. The same thing may happen when the kitchenmaid and the pantrymaid have their sinks near to one another. If the pantrymaid washes a few plates, no matter whether it is done as a favour or by collusion, the pantrymaid immediately becomes a kitchen hand, and the status of the kitchen goes up with a substantial increase in wages to the whole of the kitchen staff. I could enumerate other similar situations that could arise, but I have mentioned sufficient to show that if such as I have mentioned were taken up by an inspector, the consequences to the employer would in all likelihood be very serious. I have often discussed labour regulations with inspectors, and generally speaking they seemed to recognise that their duty is to explain and adjust differences rather than seize every opportunity tq i prosecute offenders. Employers at the present time are having a hard enough time to keep going without being the sport of restrictions.”