RAILWAYMEN SEEK SHORTER HOURS

Chronicle (Levin), 27 April 1946, Page 2

RAILWAYMEN SEEK SHORTER HOURS

^ CASE PRESENTED TO TRIBUNAL WELLINGTON, April 24. The 40-liour iive-day .week is the subject of a claini presented on behalf ot the joint railway staff organisations beforc the Railway Tribunul after an adjournment of six months.' Further evidence and submissions as a result of the recent legislation are now being heard On the claim, which is that the normal hours of duty be not more than eight each day for livc days a week, Sun days Lnclusive, the working days to be Monday to Friday, where now in operation, also for locomotive and car aiid wagon employees, double tlie ordinary rate to be paid for all time 011 duty ou the rostored or usual day oii', payment for tliis day to stand by itself. Tlie department 's advoeate, after referring to the effect of the recent legislation on the working hours, said that the department wished to make it very clear that it was its definite policy and aini to euable its euipioyccs to liave llieir hours of work, apart from Saturday duty, confined to. live shifts a week wherever practicable, and to limit the working week as far as possible to the ordinary hours prcscribed for tho differ- ' cnt elasses of employees. A dcpartmental circular had beeu issued in December last instructing executive lieads to prepure plans for the repiaeeinent ot wartime duty scliedules by rosters based ou a 40-hour iive-day week wherever practicable, and as stall becumo avail- , ablc. , Unfortunately the stall" situation had ' not developed as auticipated, and in February a nation-wide campaign was launched for recruits, particuiariy operating persounel. Although at Marcli 31, the increase in employees wa's 1970 ou' March 31, 1945, the staifs in certaiit branches were still far sliort of the reqtiirements for a 40-hour iive-day week, and,- in addition, the new appointeos required a certain period of trainiiig. The housing shorlage was also a factor in the situation. It was submitled that the granting of the olairn in the present circunistances in all branches was -not possible at prestjit, but the department inteiided to coutinue to endeavour'to bring about an extension of the principle claimed as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the department was of the opinion that the penalty claimed for a departure from a rigid live-day week was unreasonablc, having regard to Ihe naturo of railway employmenl. Prescnting the case iu support of Ihe claim of the service organisations, Mr. J. H. Berry contendcd that the department would never obtain Ihe required stall' as long as the present comparalively Juw wage rates existed and un congenial conditions inside Ihe service prevailed. It appeared uutil two months ago, wlien an intensive recruiting campaign began, that tlie department had been contcnl to let Ihe matter dri'ft and hupe for Ihe best. The organisations appreeiated the department 's posilion in regard to the wage ratc ruling but did uot eousider any great effort would be niade to iinplemeut ttie department 's own stated policy of a 4U-liour iive-day week wherever practicable, unlil tlie TribunaJ lixed a penal ratc which would make it undesirabie for the department to work members ou the sixLli weck-day and adequately eompensate members required to forego leisure timo now enjoyod bv a great uuiiiber of workcrs in New Zealanu. Mr Berry contendcd that the organisations' requcst did not go beyond the gcneral industrial custoin. Replying to Mr. E. Oasey, a mcmber of the Tribunal, Mr. Berry said it was uot, usual in the service for men to work 80 hours a week but 70 hours was quite conimon. ''Would an iiicrease in the overtime rate from time and a lialf to double timo, tend to result iu a reductiou in hours," asked Mr. Casey? If it did not, all aceepted ideas of the operatiou of pcnal rates would go by the board. The claim was for double time on the sixth day, irrespective of what time might liave beeh worked on the live days, lie said, in answer to another question. To iSL r. E. A. Whitlow, a mcmber of tlie Tribunal, Mr. Berry said it was coinmou ground that tlicre was a inanpovver sliortage. Tlie claini was to lix an appropriate penalty for work on tne sixth day, to compensate the men for loss Of leisure enjoyed b}-' most other workers.