WORKERS’ SPOKESMAN ACCUSES EMPLOYERS OF STRIKE-BAITING

Wanganui Chronicle, 8 November 1946, Page 5

WORKERS’ SPOKESMAN ACCUSES EMPLOYERS OF STRIKE-BAITING

(P.A.) Wellington, Nov. 7. An objection has been lodged by the Auckland Employers’ Association with the Arbitration Court to an agreement entered into by the employers' own assessors granting a weekly wage basis and a wage increase to labourers under a national award. This objection was condemned to-day by Mr. P. M. Butler president of the New Zealand Labourers' Federation as an attempt “at strike baiting on ths eve of the general election.” He declared the workers were irritated and Impatient at the delay in putting into operation an agreement reached more than three months ago. Mr. Butler said that in June, 1946, the employers engaged in building and allied industries met representatives of the workers in the Conciliation Council, and, after an adjournment, the parties arrived at a complete settlement in July. The settlement mainly consisted in a liberal departure front orthodox wages payments as fat as labourers were concerned. The employers agreed that after a five-day engagement a building trades labourer should be placed on a weekly wage basis. Previously, such workers were engaged on an hour-to-hour basis. In a lull spirit of conciliation workers' representatives made some concessions to the employers,, calculated to make the weekly wage effective and attract workers to.the industry. “As soon as the main features of the settlement were made known, an avalanche of opposition was brought to bear on the employers’ representatives lor conceding a weekly wage basis of employment," said Mr. Butler. After several difficulties haa been smoothed away documents were signed and tiled in the Coutt on November 4. Notwithstanding the pressure brought on individual assessors, the employers’ representatives stooo by their undertaking. “Tlte unreasonable objections to a weekly wage is beyond comprehension," stated Mr. Buller. “During the war itw as worked with undoubted success in defence works operations, and was a main factor in contributing to the success of that colossal task. Strangely enough, the objection does not come front the industry itscil, but from those outside, and the Act pctmils this. The employers realise tnal to proceed with the building industry in an organised form it must be made equally as attractive as certain luxury induslties. Papers were filed in the Court on November 4. On the following day the Registrar ot the Court wrote to lite advocates of each side requesting the parties to submit to the Court explanations and grounds for these alterations for lite purposes of Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations. In addition, the Regis, traw drew attention to two machinery clauses of the agreement, and re. quested that tlte ’intentions of the parties be macle clear. “The Registrar also advised that Mr. VV. E. Anderson, secretary of the Auckland Employers’ Association, had lodged an obecjtion to the recommendation of the assessors. Mr. Anderson did not state the basis of his objection, but proposed to attend the Court under Section 106, which is ns wide as a paddock, in order to object to the settlement. At the Conciliation Council lite Auckland master builders were represented by two assessors, one o( whom is president of the New Zealand Master Builders’ Association. Thus, notwithstanding direct representation of the employers concerned, an Xit. side individual is permitted to go in and lodge an objection. "It is obvious that the real objection of Mr. Anderson and the Auckland Employers’ Association is directed at the weekly wage provision. It appears

to us, from previous experience with Mr. Andrrson, that the real intentions are to cause an industrial upheaval on the eve of the general election. At the moment workers arc intensely Irritated. Through their representatives ami representatives of employers, they have made a reasonable settlement. They are bring denied fruits of that settlement through procrastination and artificial objection.*