CALLING A HALT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20103, 24 November 1939, Page 5

CALLING A HALT

REVISION OF AWARDS NEED FOR PERMANENCE JUDGE DEFINES POLICY OLD TERMS RE-ENACTED Tiie importance of securing a greater measure of permanence in the terms of industrial awards is stressed by the Judge of the Arbitration Court, Mr. Justice O’Regau, in n memorandum which he has attached to the Dominion wool and grain stores’ award, issued by the court in Auckland this week. "Having regard to the evidence,"

said His Honour, "the majority of the court hold Hint, the only course possible is to re-enact the expired award. Obviously, wo cannot make every award a new pronouncement." Ilis Honour quoted a statement of the late Mr. Justice Sim. pointing out that it was not the function of the court to go on endlessly revising the conditions of a particular industry.

Rates of Wages Strongly dissenting from the wages provisions of the new award, the workers’ representative on the court. Mr. A. L. Monleith. makes the point that, though judges had laid down the rule that revising of conditions endlessly would not be done, yet each in turn had shortly afterwards revised his opinion. The new award made by the court is in terms of the old one, as asked hv llu* employers, except in a few minor matters that were mutually agreed upon. "The award governing this industry, dated May 3, 1937,” states His Honour, "was in terms agreed upon bv the parties in conciliation council, and it prescribed a casual rate of 2s 2d an hour, a weekly rate of £4 14s. and a working week of 44 hours. The award in question was superseded by that dated January 28. 1938, by which there were ordained a casual rate of 2s 5d an hour, a weekly rate of £4 12s (id. and a working week of 44 hours, though it was provided that, in respect of tiie four hours worked on Saturday, there should be a pro rata payment for weekly workers. Hence tin: casual employee working 40 hours would earn £4 10s 8d; if he worked on Saturday £5 (is 4d, and the permanent employee at £4 12s lid would earn, working on Saturday, £5 Is 9d. Question of Hours “The applicant union has now sought a new award, and has preferred claims for a casual minimum ol 3s an hour, a weekly rate of £5 ss, and a working week oi 40 hours. In support of these claims, four witnesses were called, who expressed the opinion that the claims were reasonable. No evidence was given to show that the wages prescribed were at variance either with the court’s standard pronouncement or with the rates ruling generally. "On the question of hours, the witnesses also expressed the opinion that a working week of 40 hours was possible and reasonable. In support of that opinion they referred to tiie fact that, for some time after the coming into operation of the last award, no Saturday Work was done in Auckland. Cross-examination, however, elicited that .during the period in question the workers deliberately absented themselves—that they engaged in an unlawful strike—and evidence by the respondents’ witnesses showed that: employers were gravely inconvenienced thereby. Week of 44 Hours "Tiie evidence produced hv the employers in the matter of hours was not seriously challenged, and it satisfied the court that the industry could not he carried on efficiently in a working week shorter than 44 hours, tor the following reasons: —(1) The stores must he open on five and a-half days of the week lo receive wool, grain hides, skins and other produce as well as to deliver goods to transport services; <2) green hides and skins arrive on Saturday mornings and must be treated immediately to prevent deterioration: (3) some men must he on duty on Saturday to receive and otherwise deal with the produce arriving; (4) much of the loading of cargo for overseas is done on Saturday, and the employers must be ready to load for export when required by the shipowners; and (5) generally speaking, the work from Monday to Friday, inclusive, cannot be done in a riav of less than eight hours. Accordingly, having regard to the evidence, the majority of the court hold that Hie only course possible is lo re-enact the expired award.

Previous Court Decision

"In the hope of facilitating the settlement of disputes, the court made a pronouncement in September, 11)37, that its minimum standard rates were 2s 9cl and 2s 4d an hour for skilled and unskilled workers respectively, with a medium rate for semi-skilled. The union in effect has now asked the Court to make a further pronouncement, but obviously we cannot make every award a new pronouncement. "In this connection, it is appropriate to recall what the court, through Mr. Justice Sim, said in its memorandum to the Gisborne Painters’ Award in May. 1900. Therein it was pointed out that it is cpiite a mistake to suppose that it is the function of the court to go on endlessly revising the conditions of a particular industry. ‘Where an industry has been before the court two or three times, and its conditions investigated, the last award should be treated as finally settling these conditions, and any alteration can only be made on clear and definite proof that there has been a change in circumstances since that award was made’ it was stated.” Mr. Moiitcitli’s Dissent

"I strongly dissent from the award, mainly because of the wages awarded," states Mr. Monleith. “In the North Canterbury wool and grain stores award. 1922. the court adopted the principle of awarding these workers lAd above the labourers' rate, but that has not been followed in this case.

"I think that the shift workers should have received 2s a shift extra because such shifts sire seasonal Various judges of this court have laid down the rule that revising of conditions endlessly would not be done, but each in turn very shortly after revised his opinion, sis the various books of awards will show."

The court prescribed a short term for the new award. If conies into force as from November 20, 1939. and is; to continue until June JO. 10-10.