The Engineering Lock-Out

Hokitika Guardian, 29 June 1922, Page 4

The Engineering Lock-Out

IMt’ORTANT REPORT

MEANING OF “NECESSARY.”

LONDON, May 11

The lung drawn out’ engineering dispute has had many ups and downs, but to-day does seem measurably within sight of the end. One important factor in this consummation is to he found in the report issued to-day by Sir William MacKonzio, K.C., who conducted the inquiry into the causes of tho dispute. His analysis, clear and. definite as it is aiid si applicable to like disputes the world over, is worth reproduction at some length. It brings out clearly that the quarrel hinges on tho interpretation of one word—nevessary —what constitutes necessary overtime, the rock on which negotiations have repeatedly split. It is the pivot. 011 which will turn all the labour disputes in the near future, l'or cm tho position of this pivotal point will depend where the employer’s full control of his enterprise ends and tho employee can claim to have a say. Sir William’s report says: •-•

“Tile matter is one .in which no agreement, however cart fully devised, can wholly take the place of good sense and good will between tho parties and an appreciation by either side of the difficulties and point of' view of the other. The managing of a business is a responsible and difficult task, mid no official should unnecessarily or without good cause acid ter its anxieties. (Similarly, each employer, and those acting under him, shot*ld recognise that in his more restricted sphere the workman is conscious that issues are sometimes at stake which are of the utmost importance to him, and upon which consultation and, as far as possible, nceomme elation may Ik: tin* wise star well as the most humane policy. “The question of necessity in regard to overtime is related to the requirement of the work In lie clone, and the business ill hand, and ax to this necessity tho management alone are. in a position to judge. The National Agreement allowing thirty hours in four weeks implies that up to that limit overtime granted it is necessary, is vgarded as reasonable. Up to that limit ther must he freedom to the management to act in the exercise of their ciiscj'/etion. Beyond that limit overtime would he open to the suggestion that it is unreasonable.

“The opportunity for prior consultation between the management and the men directly concerned or their representatives in tho shop, upon prepared changes in the recognised working ct nditious, should he adequate, hut shot Id not involve undue delay. If eonsuliatiem during a limited period does not result in an agrecmnt, tho further stages of the Provisions for Avoiding Disputes should follow, hut in U'e meantime, the management may, if they think il ncrossiry an,] in the exercise of their discretion, put the change into operation, any subsequent agreement that may he reached upon the case having retrospective effect wl ere appropriate.

“ft is evident that the opposition to change on the part of the skilled men is due largely to the uncertainty whirli the members of the unions feel as lo

their position if they are displaced as a result of the change. An expanding industry like tile engineering trade is capable of making readjustments affecting particular classes of workpeople while at the same time providing for tfie proper utilisation of the skill thus set free.

“An agreement to the principle of making such arrangements as shall pro. vide avenues of employment for such men ought not to he difficult; and as tin* success of an v change depend largely on its willing acceptance by the men. the measure of such acceptance will depend on the action of the employers, in conjunction with the union in accommodating skilled employment the men set free.”