DAIRY FACTORY WORKERS ASK SHORTER HOURS

Grey River Argus, 11 August 1948, Page 5

DAIRY FACTORY WORKERS ASK SHORTER HOURS

With Wage Increases Employers’ Application In First For Award P.A. WELLINGTON, Aug. 10 A 35-hour week, with an ordinary working day of seven hours, was proposed 'by the New Zealand Dairy Factories Employees' Union in its claims for a New Zealand uairy bactories Employees' award, handed to the employers, in tne council to-day. The present award for the industry provides lor a <tU-nour, live-day week, wun an ordinary woixmg aay of eigiu days. xne award covers all factories making ouiter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, ana casein, ana it ailects ail workers except tne factory managers. The union sought wage increases varying from xis bd a week xor general hands to £1 11s 3d a week for urst assistants in butter factories, and £2 Is 3d for first assistants in cheese tactories. The new wage scale proposed for butter factories ranged from si bs a week lor general hands to £9 5s a week for first assistants, and xv lbs for foremen. I’he new scale proposed for cheese factories ranged irom £7 5s a weex tor general hands to £9 15s a weex tor Urst assistants. Another new proposal was the payment of aaaitional wage increases to the highest paid classified workers in the butter and cheese factories, the scale of payments to vary from 5s a weex to rl 10s a week, according to the tonnage of the output of the factories. The union also asked for the payment of adult male rates to all the women workers, except certain specified cases, and lor further provision to restrict the proportion of youths to adults employed.

EMPLOYERS' PROPOSALS The employers’ proposals contained little variation irom the present award. Seven assessors from the dairy factory districts throughout New Zealand appeared tor the employers. The workers were represented by three officials, who were not prepared to proceed immediately' in dealing with tne claims, because of technical points raised concerning the mling ol claims, aim oecause, m consequence oi these points, they had not brought a full bench of assessors to Wellington. WHOSE DISPUTE, The secretary oi the i_.mpio.yees' Unimi, ivir L. u. rcobertson, said that tne two applications m tne dispute were lodged on the same day, juiy one irom the union, ana one irom the employers. He notified the Conciliation commissioner on August 2 oi me dispute, as created by the union, but on August 3 he received a completed set of papers from the Clerx oi awiuus xur a dispute as created by me employers, lor whicn the sitting date nxed was August 10. He could not carry the matter further, as there were two sets of claims and he, thereiore, proposed that the council should decide now wno was me appneant party, tne workers' union or the employers. Mr J. R. Hamon, ior the employers, said that the employers took \action to file claims because they reared a delay by the union in bringing the matter on, and they did not want tile uispute to extend into the busy season. The union secretary was promptly informed ot tne employers' decision, and had six weexs in which to arrange ior me appearance of assessors in Wellington. The employers, having already tiled their claims, reiiied them bn July 29, because their urst papers were not correct in every detail, as required by the regulations. But the union had ample notice. It was absurd for the union not to agree to proceed, he said. He would say that failure on the part of the workers to go on couid only be considered as a means of extending the dispute until later in the year. The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr C. L. Hunter, (Auckland), said that the Council could not proceed, but it could decide which party's claims were to be received as the actual claims in the dispute, and which as counter claims. The Commissioner suggested that, as the union had always been the applicant party in the past ,the employers could agree to concede that position to the union on this occasion.

BIG STICK ALLEGED Mr W. N. Perry (Cambridge): “Twice in the last two seasons the matter has drifted on to the busy season and the big stick has been held over our head in the dairy industry. I will not be a party to that happening again. We don’t want to be jockeyed into that position this time, and that is why we filed the claims.” Mr J. Ross, for the union, said that an adjournment last year was taken at the employee’s request. The employers’ representatives conferred among themselves, and later announced that, subject to agreement being reached for an early sitting of the Council, they would allow the union to proceed as the applicant. The employers would not withdraw their claims. They would hold them m abeyance. They asked the right also to amend their counter claims during the sitting of the council. This offer was accepted by the uion -representatives, and September 6 was fixed as the date for the next sitting. i a—