DOMINION DRIVERS’ DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 192, 10 May 1940, Page 7

DOMINION DRIVERS’ DISPUTE

Court Of Arbitration

Hearing

The hearing of tin application for a Dominion motor and horse drivers’ award was begun in the Court of Arbitration yesterday. The Court consisted of Mr. Justice Tyndall, Mr. A. L. Monteith and Mr. W. E. Anderson. .Mr. F. C. Allerby appeared for the. unions and Air. D. I. .Macdonald for the employers. 'The main question before the Court was that, of wages. Other matters, with the exception of three or four clauses affecting conditions, had been set I led in Conciliation Council. Mr. Allerby said that the workers, in agreeing to many conditions of the existing award, were actuated by the fuel. Unit the country was at war and might be so for years. Though conditions were far from satisfactory they agreed to accept them for a further term. That, however, should not: be used against them in future proceedings.

Drivers, Mr. Allerby submitted, had not maintained their relative wage position compared with labourers. The nature and importance of their work made Hueni worthy of the higher wages they were seeking. “Our argument is based on'Mie question of getting back our relative position in wages to other workers, as enjoyed by drivers in past awards,” he said. Mr. Macdonald emphasized that there had been no substantial changes in conditions of work or other conditions' affecting the industry sufficient to justify any different decision from that given by (be Court in 1938. There were a number of conditions supporting the employers’ claim that wages should not be increased. An increase in transport costs would throw a direct

increase upon -primary producers, and it was not in the interests of the country as a whole that costs of production should be increased. The hearing will continue today.

CASE FAILS

Payment Of Travelling Time A ease brought, by the inspector of awards against the Residential Construction Co., Ltd., for two alleged breaches of the New Zealand Carpenters’ Award was the subject of a reserved judgment given yesterday in the Court of Arbitration by .Mr. Justice Tyndall. The judgment was for defendant company. 'l'he inspector alleged that the company bud failed to pay travelling time Io Iwo carpenters who lived in Wellington and worked nt. Lower Hutt 'l’he company had an office and joinery factory at Kaiwarra ami a workshop, local office ami store at. Waterloo. The inspector submitted that the shop of the employer for the purpose of the award was at Kaiwarra, and the company contended against that. 'i’he Court decided that the Waterloo workshop was a shop, office, store, or other recognized place of business within the meaning of Hie award, that the centra! point for the computation of travelling lime was the Lower Unit Post. Oilice, ami that the non-payment to the two men concerned was not <i breach.

The Conn pointed out that if lire extract from an earlier judgment, given by another judge, that the employer could not have more than one shop or place of business was accepted as having general interpretation it would mean that for the purposes of the award an employer could not have a shop in each of two main centres. Such an interpretation would be absurd.