FREESING DISPUTE.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 November 1921, Page 4

FREESING DISPUTE.

BONUS ft EDUCED. Tn'• Tnr.KcinAcn —per chess association OHRSTCHURCH. Novomlior 27.

The award of the Arbitration Court in connection with tho freezing workers’ dispute has been filed. Th,, memorandum attached to the award sums ns the Court’s decision in respect to wages and indicates the basis on which several matters in dispute were settled It is as follows: The matters left, to tho decision of tho Court wore unusually numerous, and in many cases were of a complicated technical nature. In dealing with the technical clauses, we received very valuable assitanee from Sir Francis Boys and Mr Oedenvell (whose place was afterwards taken by Mr Shoal, who were nominated by the employers as exports and Messrs Sill and Niall. who were similarly nominated by the workera.

The question of wages has received our careful attention. In the main we have adopted tho scale of rates set out in the awards and agreements of 1919, hut have made minor changes in order to remove anomalies.

By an agreement between the parties in Deccmhr, 1020. a bonus 0 f ‘2O per cent was added to piece-workers’ •rates and a bonus of 25 per cent to time workers’ rates. These were in excess of the bonuses granted b v the Court and wo were satisfied that in ciow of the altered conditions and low prices ruling for meat on the T.ondon market and the urgent necessity for freezing companies to reduce their charges to farmers, the bonus additions required revision. We have therefore followed the 1919 basic rates, hut have reduced the bonus to 12J and 15 per cent, respectively. This places the workers in the freezing industry on the same footing in comparison to other workers as existed in 1912 and 1914,

when the freezing workers secured certain advantages which they still retain under this award, and their purchasing power is at least equal to what it was last season.

We have incorporated the provisions of the oasing workers’ award and agreements in this award, so as to havo one uniform set of awards for the wliolci industry. We have, recast m number of clauses of the UHO awards and agreements in oonneetion with which there were matters and agicements as a guide and to supplement their provisions where it has boon necessary to do so. and to make amendments where it was shown that anomalies existed; and with the object of ensuring that the award should be clear ; and definite in its terms and should diver ns far as it was possible to 1 foresee, all matters that might othorv.ise heroine subjects of differences between the parties, though separate awards have been prepared for the different industrial districts. They are identical in their wording, and we have indicated in a sub-clause under appropriate headings that any matters in respect of , which different rates „f conditions are prescribed for different districts. This we hope wiill i-ender awards convenient for reference and will save the employer hn-vipg business in more than one district or the worker removing from one district to another; and from -the trouble of having to compare differing local awards.

It is necessary that two members of the Court shall concur before a derision can Ik' given. Tn the preparation of this award, some of the clauses represented the decision of a majority. sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other; bill the award as a whole has been adopted by all three members

as a reasonable settlemnt of a very difficult series of problms, and is accordingly concurred in by us all.