ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19789, 13 February 1928, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

DUNEDIN SITTING CONTINUED INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES HEARD The Arbitration Court—His Honor Mr Justice Frazer (president), Messrs W. Soott and A. L. Monteith (assessors) —sat this morning to hear a number of industrial disputes. LOCAL BODIES’ LABORERS. la the local bodies’ laborers’ dispute, in which an agreement had been reached on all matters excepting wages and weekly hands, Mr J. Robinson appeared for the union and Mr A. S. Cookson for the employers. Mr Robinson, in opening the case for the union, stated that two questions only remained in dispute—wages and the clause affecting weekjy hands, ihe union claimed, with a slight alteration in ihe present classification, the following rates, which represented an increase of Id per hour, and thus brought the rates up to the standard adopted for public local bodies throughout New Zealand-.—Laborers employed in tunnels, shafts, or trenches of a depth ot 6ft or over, or in timbering trenches, 2s Id per hour; laborers employed in concrete work, pick and shovel work, laying and cleaning drains, and ail other work of the same kind, Is lid per hour; men employed as tar workers (sprayers and broom) should be paid, in addition to the rates set out, Is per day; laborers employed in jointing gas or water mains should receive not less than 2s Id per hour; laborers employed in hammer and drill work or in using explosives, 2s per hour; steam, electric, or motor shovel drivers, 2s 3d per hour, and whilst engaged on other work 2s 2d per hour; leading hands should he paid, in addition to the ordinary rates, Is 6d per day. The assessors for the employers had agreed, Mr Robinson continued, that steam, electric, or motor shovel drivers should be covered by this award, but they would not agree to the rates claimed for those workers. Some time ago a number of local bodies had agreed to adopt a standard rate of Is lid per hour, instead of at the rate of Is lUd per hour. Later the court adopted that principle, and had since applied it to local bodies’ laborers throughout New Zealand. In Otago they were merely asking for the same treatment that had been given to workers in other centres. The union asked that the clanso relating to weekly hands be amended to increase the weekly wage from £4 6s to £4 10a, the increase asked being equivalent to the increase asked for hourly workers. Mr Cookson said that the present industrial agreement provided for a minimum rate of Is lOd per hour, and the union was claiming Id per hour increase all round. The Dunedin City Council, tho principal employer concerned, had instructed him to strenuously oppose any increase on the present rates. He was aware that it had been the practice of the court to award a higher rate to the employees of public bodies than to similar workers in private employment, but it was difficult to understand the reason for such dilfereutiation, particularly when consideration was given to the many advantages which the public: bodies’ employees enjoyed. The City Council employees had no broken time, and the recommendation in this dispute provided that no deduction be made in respect of the specified holidays in the case of any worker who had been continuously employed for not less than four months. The great majority ol the workers are permanently employed and are infinitely better oti than workers in private employment, who were paid only for the time actually worked-. Further than that, the council had a superannuation scheme in operation in which a great many of the employees participate. As was pointed out by the town clerk, tho council had ample opportunities of proving itself a model employer without being compelled to pay a higher rate of wages than that imposed on private _ employers. In its memoranda to the North Island laborers’ awards made in 1926 the court had set out very fully the reasons why it could not grant a higher minimum rate than Is lOd. His point was that tho court was then fixing a casual rat© in respect of a class of workers all of whom could not obtain full time employment. To-day it was being asked to deal with a class of workers who not only had full-time employment, but the great majority of whom were paid for holidays, besides enjoying other advantages. Tho object, of the court had been to place workw s receiving the minimum wage on a .standard at least equal to that of 1914. Since the September, 1925, pronouncement was made conditions had not materially altered, and the cost of living is. if anything, a little lower now t! ~n then. Tho present rates of wages gave the council’s employees an increase of 61 per cent, over 1914, so that they were already above the standard alined at by the court. Tho wages claimed were C 6 per cent, above 1914, and it was difficult to understand upon what grounds the granting of a rate of wages which would have that effect could be justified. He was informed that the council was already having some of its work done by private contract, and any further increase in labor costs wonlrl compel it to go further in that direction. In that ease, of course, the workers who were employed by the contractors would not enjoy the benefits, such as payment for holidays, which they got at present. He maintained that it was quite unfair to expect public bodies to pay higher rates of wages than private employers. His Honor stated that the court would consider the matter. In reference to local bodies having to pay a higher rate of wages to their employees, he said that tho court had found it had become a practice among local bodies to pay Id per hour more than other laborers received, one reason being that the local bodies’ award was generally accepted as the standard. Builders and others, however, sometimes regarded it as a minimum. He

did not know if that applied to al! New Zealand, but in some parte it was the regular thing. That being so, tho court said that as a practice had been adopted by a number of local bodies, and as tho rate was generally regarded by local bodies a.s a standard rather than as a true minimum, it was thought better to fix the extra Id an hour as the basis of its local bodies’ laborers’ award. In so far as the Dunedin City Council was concerned, it might be that the council gave special advantages to its men. If it guaranteed them a full week’s employment, paid them for holidays, and gave them a superannuation scheme, it was, of course, going outside the award. Ho did not see anything in the award to compel tho council to pay its men tor the full forty-seven hours a week. Mr Cookson; “There are some casuals, of course.” His Honor said that what might bn true of the Dunedin City Council might not be true of the other six local bodies that had joined in this award, ami it might be that tho council might bo exceeding what it was required to do under the award. That could hardly be a justification for the council to make less favorable terms than it otherwise would for the men employed by the local bodies. The best thing the council could have done was to have told its men that it wanted them to consider the matter of making a separate industrial agreement rather than refer the council to the General Laborers’ Award. The council could have said it was prepared to give the regular hands continuous work for forty-seven hours a week, to pay them for holidays, to continue the superannuation* scheme, and do anything else it was compelled to do. In consideration of that the council could have asked, “ Will you agree to the old rate of Is lOd per hour instead of Is lid?” He did not know whether or not tho union would have accepted the bargain. THHATH 10AL WORKERS. In respect to the “front of the bouse” theatre workers’ award Mr Itohinson, who acted as agent for the union, applied to have the matter adjourned for discussion at a dominion dispute. The employers had filed a local dispute, but since that time a dominion dispute had been filed, which was favored by the .local union. The employers’ claims were in terms of the present award, and consequently the delay meant no hardship. The employers were merely asking the present award to be maintained. Mr Cookson objected to this. He said the dispute had been created by the employers on November 21, and they did not know then that the dominion dispute had been filed. It was thought to be difficult to deal with the matter in a dominion award because the conditions in the various centra® were different. They had made an ap» plication for a local award, and as faf as they knew it had been made befori a dominion award had been applied for. The reason why the employers had applied for an award was because tho terms of the old award had expired, and they desired a renewal of it which would hold good for the next two years. Mr Robinson: “An adjournment would not be an injustice to the employers.” After adjourning to discuss the matter the court granted the adjournment.