COUNCIL EMPLOYEES.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14844, 9 December 1913, Page 4

COUNCIL EMPLOYEES.

A QUESTION OF WAGES. AWARD OVERBUYS AGREEMENT. Matters relating to the pay of the general labourers employed by the City Council were again discussed at the meeting of tho City Council last night. STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR. The Mayor made the following statement :— "A matter of some importance has cropped up since oar last meeting, and which has caused mc some surprise, as I am sure it will surprise councillors It 13 the question of Many members of this Council, wiur myseJt, were led to believe that this question was settled for some time to come. Ibis apparently is not co. I have bc«n asked by the Council's officers to instruct them as to the rate of pay to be paid now; I deemed it my duty to refer j this question to tho wholo Council. ' Some months ago the Council entered into an agreement with its employees to pay £2 14s por wook of 47 hours. The Labour members agreed to these terms, and we were assured that the general secretary of tho Labourers' Union would also agree to these terms being made an award of tho Court. For reasons I have never been aole iv understand, this has not been done. What 1 am ied to understand has happened is th3t the secretary of the General Labourers' Union has applied to the Court lor an award of Is '2d per hour instead of la ljd as agreed on, and as tho Council was not represented at tho Court, the award has been given against the Council, and instead of paying £2 14s per week .of 47 hours (and for which provision was made on the year's estimates) it is now called on to pay £2 16s for the same hours. I do not know the exact number of men who will bo affected, but I estimate it at 150. This will probably mean an additional expenditure of about £750 a year for which no provision has been made. If the Council decides that it must not exceed its estimates, tho only way to do so will bo to only allow the men to work 44 hours per week, foi which they will receive £2 lls. 4d, instead of £2 14s as at present. The Council seems to mc to be forced into this position, which is neither fair to the Council nor its employees. Councillors, I believe, are under a penalty for exceeding the estimates by more than one per cent. I for one am not prepared to assume this responsibility. 1 have, therefore, no choice in tho matter. I can only recommend the Council to <;omply with tho award and pay on 44 hours a week. I deeply reto makj this recoinmPndation, tut 1 cannot advise the Council to exct-ed its estimates, nor to pay time and a quarter for tWw hours and time nnd a half for ono hour. This will mean a reduction in tin* weekly wages ot *•» &i per man. I am confident that neither the men nor tho Council desires this, but I can see no other alternative. I shall bo glad to have tha guidance of the Council in this matter The matter can be discussed under the heading of new business, or now by a unanimous vote of the Council.' , Cr. Hunter regretted that the Mayor had inferred that some underhand Wi-rk had been going on. He did not know whether that was the Mayor's intention. The Mayor: No. Cr. Hunter said the proposed reduction in hours would not help, for ii shorter hours. were worked more men would have to be employed. He would move that the matter be referred to the Works Committee to consider. Tha. action of the Council was not an agreement with the rr.en, but simply an expression of the view of the Council that the Wages decided on should be pai3. He had proposed that the decision should be communicated to the Arbitration Court to be included in an award, but that proposal was not accepted by tho Works Committee. Cr. Sorensen moved an amendment that the men should be required to work 44 hours. Cr. Laasby, who seconded the amendment, said he had a distinct recollection when the £2 14s was decided on of Cr. Hunter stating that that would be acceptable to the workers, that ho had an assurance from the Union that that would be so. Cr. McCnllough asked if tho agreement made between the Council and the Union was signed by representatives bf the Council. The Mayor regretted that the agreement was never made an award of the Court. Cr. Hunter was in the chair when the Works Committee recommended that the agreement should be made an award of the Court. When the report came before tho Council, Cr Otley, chairman of the committee, said ho would not like to move its adoption, and Or. Hunter said that in view of developments he could not. It was a great pity the emewtion was dropped. Cr. Otley said he was to blame. He agreed with the labourers for 44 hours, and because they went back on the Council he was not going ftack on the award. Tlio Is 2d was the minimum ■wage for all local bodies, and there was no reason why tho Council, if it wanted to work longer hours than 44. should not pay for it. Personally, he did not bolieve in overtime. After further discussion the amendment was put and carried, Cr. Hunter voting against it.