Inquiry Into Abattoir Suggested By Union

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31081, 9 June 1966, Page 14

Inquiry Into Abattoir Suggested By Union

If the Christchurch abattoir continued to sustain losses it was time a proper public inquiry was made into its administration, said the secretary of the Canterbury Freezing Workers’ Union (Mr S. Arnst) in the Court of Arbitration in Christchurch yesterday.

The abattoir over the last two years has lost £24,000. This year losses have been reduced by increased killing fees.

Mr Arnst in his submissions said that he wanted to make it clear that in the union’s opinion it appeared to be wrong for the employers to use another body which was not a party to the award in an endeavour to influence the Court. “We do not think that the modest wage increase which we have claimed will ‘wipe out’ the Christchurch abattoir industry,” he said.

Mr Arnst said that the Court would be informed by the employers’ advocate about the losses the employing company was sustaining. “Over the years the same tale of woe has been told and we have offered our services on numerous occasions at the completion of conciliation proceedings to make a joint approach to the interested people concerning any increase in the killing rate,” said Mr Arnst. “Our offer has never been accepted by the employing company and this has led us to believe that the employers have never had much difficulty on this subject.”

D“< , 'sion Reserved I The Court yesterday reserved its decision in the 1 Christchurch Abattoir employ- • ees’ industrial dispute. The hearing was before Judge A. P. Blair, the employers’ representative (Mr W. N. Hewitt) and the workers’ representative (Mr A. B Grant). Mr Arnst was the advocate for the Canterbury, Marlborough and Nelson Freezing Works and Related Trades Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers. He requested the Court to make a new award, in accordance with the union’s claims set out in the terms of the partial settlement reached in a council of conciliation at Christchurch on April 20. last. The respondents, Canterbury Bye Products Ltd., who run the abattoir, were represented by the employers’ advocate (Mr H. F. Butland). Mr Arnst said that he had a ’telephone call with Auckland yesterday morning before the Court proceedings began. He had been informed that lan award for Auckland workers had been agreed and that a percentage of 4d an hour had been written into the piece-work rate on beef. The mutton workers had received 3d an hour written into their piece-work rate, plus 3d an hour sharpening time. All other workers at the Auckland abattoir had received 3d an hour as a basis for the increase and various classifications had received a further Id, 2d and 3d over and above th s basic 3d an hour. In reply to a question by Judge Blair, Mr Arnst said that he had not implied a threat in a particular part of his submission. Mr Arnst had said in his submissions that the workers were all conscious of the importance of their industry for the community. But for the employers to ignore the just demands of their employees for increased wages, however, could not but cause dissatisfaction. Mr Arnst had also said that the disorganisation which must follow such dissatisfaction was against the interest of the community serviced by the Christchurch abattoir. He had also said: “We submit, therefore, that in making our claim we have not only tl.e interests of our members a’: heart, but that we are advancing the welfare of an industry which must rely on cooperation between workers and employers and that the welfare of the community at large will be furthered by the Court granting our claims.” He said that the union had

always been able to settle its differences with management at conciliation council proceedings and the industry in the main had gone along comparatively smoothly.

“But on this occasion the union met with a blunt and unconditional ‘no’ to our wage claims and the employers say in effect ‘you have the best abattoir award in New Zealand, therefore, you will have to mark time till the others catch up with you’,” said Mr Arnst. In his submissions, Mr Butland, for the employers, said that an illustrated table showed that the rates for Canterbury abattoir workers were considerably higher than those in other centres. The rates were also higher than those in the freezing works award.

Mr Grant said that the inference drawn could be that other awards were too low. Claim Amended

Mr Butland said that the union originally claimed increases of from £1 a week to £3 a week for weekly workers and £1 a day for pieceworkers. But vfter discussion in conciliation council and a week’s strike had amended its claims and reduced them to a flat rate increase equivalent to 10s a week. Mr Butland said that the respondent company was opposed to any increase being granted as it thought that the rates prescribed by the present award were already high enough for the volume and quality of the work being performed. He said that the daily tally was normally reached by 2.45 p.m., instead of 4.45 p.m., and subsequent work—paid for at

: double-time rates —was carried out within the eighthour day. The pace of the slaughtermen in reaching the tally so early in the day had repercussions in other directions, said Mr Butland. The quality of the work suffered and skins and hides were cut and scored to a much greater extent than was reasonable. Mr Butland said that under the present conditions slaughtermen were working 32 hours (including breaks) a week and averaging £3O a week in the case of mutton and beef slaughtermen and £35 for pig slaughtermen, while labourers averaged between £l9 and £2O for their 35-hour week. .“The company submits that these men are well paid for the work they perform and that no increase in the present award rates'is justified,” said Mr Butland. Mr Butland, in his. sum-, ming up, said that some of Mr ; Arnst’s submission “con-' tained a veiled threat of a lot of industrial disharmony if a suitable award was not made."

Mr Butland put forward two views on possible alternatives.. They were that if the Court accepted the company’s submission and did not increase wages in the new award, the claim for a 12 months’ award would not be opposed. I But, on the other hand, if I lan increase in wage rates! ' was awarded, the company i would ahere to its proposal for a two-year award. i The Court yesterday reserved its decision on an application by Airwork (N.Z.), Ltd., to be struck from those cited as parties to the -New Zealand Airways Clerical Employees’ Award.