CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18234, 19 November 1924, Page 6

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

——* —- ■ JOURNALISTS' DISPUTE. A dispute between the New Zealand Industrial Union of Journalists and the New Zealand Newspaper Proprietors' Association oame up for hearing betoe the Conciliation Council, yesterday. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr'W: H. Hagger, presided.. The employers' representatives were: Messrs G. C. Codlin,. C. W. Earle, W. C. Weston, R. B. Bell, E. C. Huie, and A. G. Henderson, and those appealing on behalf nf'the employees were: \Messrs C. Renn, A. £-I**S A. Marshall, C H. Ghq»>. G L. Stanbrooke, and M. E. Lyons. The employees' demands included V*™%* for a forty-four hour week, with a forty-two hour'week for readers, .revisers, and copyholders: Grading systems for various strengths of staffs were included, and the salaries claimed for -metropolitan papeis were as follow: Chief eub-cdrtor £l2, second-sub-editor, £11; other sub-editors, £lO. • agricultural editor, £11; racing editor, £ll- lady editor, £7; chief reporter, £11; senior reporters, £3 His; general reporters, £3 10s; junior reporters (first, year). £5 10s, (second year), £6los; cadets (first year), £2; 15s, (second year) £3 15s; (third year) £4 1«, first reader, £8 -10s (night), £7 10s (day! second reader,' £7 ISs (night), £6 15b (day); third and fourth readers, £7 6s: (night),-.£6. ss"(day)'; reviser, '£i (night), £3 (day);, copyholders, first six months £2 .5s (night), £l 15s (day), second six months, £2.10s (night), £2 (day); third six months, £3 (night), £2 10s (dav); fourth six months, £3 10a (night), £3 (day).'... •Country-journalists' saJari.es claimed were as follows: Senior journalists, £9; general journaHsts, £8; junior journaijsts (first year), £5; junior journalists (second year) £6; .cadets?(Bret.year); £2l'-lOs";. (second- : y;eia,r)',''£3-. 10s; (third ; year), : £4' 10s.'' . " •'' ' The employers' counter-proposals were on the lines of the existing award'in Christchurch, while the country ■'journalists were provided for as in the present Wellington Country . Journalists', award. Mr Renn, on behalf of the employees, said this was the . first attempt which the New Zealand journalists had made to secure an award . which would operate throughout the whole of the Dominion. The journalists considered that it would be more business? like and economical to have a. Dominion award. They recognised the difference existing between country conditions find those applying to the ■cities, and had made..profusion for such, in their claims. The speaker pointed out that by obtaining a Dominion award the journalists did ' not aim to !get any particular benefit thereby. It was sometimes the .case that where employees secured a Dominion award they secured, some benefit thereby, hut in this case they would eecure no greater advantage than they expected in the case of the local dispute. . Mr Henderson considered the. made for wages and grading were unreasonable. He intimated that although the employer* did not particularly wish a Dominion award, they would be prepared to accept it on certain conditions, included in which was the abolition of the grading system. The wagesclaimed were unreasonable. .-,.--. ■ After some discussion • the employees' assessors intimated that they wera prepare' to make considerable all-round reductions with, regard' to salaries. Mr Henderson stated, however, that the employees''demands were beyond the bounds of their acceptance, and the employers wish : ed the.whole matter to bo referred-to the Arbitration Court.

The whole dispute was accordingly referred to the Court. On the motion-of Mr Earle, seconded by Mr Renn, a vote of thanks was passed to the. Commissioner, for his'efforts during the hearing of the dispute.