FLAXMILLS AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3843, 11 September 1928, Page 2

FLAXMILLS AWARD.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTHS. ON AUTOMATIC SCUTCHERS. INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE SOUGHT. A difference of opinion between the Eaxmill Employees’ Union and the Flaxinillers’ Association as to the interpretation of clauses of an award, was referred to the Arbitrattion Court sitting in Palmerston N. yesterday. On the bench were His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, Messrs A. L. Monteith and G. T. Booth., employees’ and employers’ representatives respectively.

Clause 4 of the award sets out that the automatic scutchers shall be twopress 16s fid per ton, and onepress 17s fid per ton. And in clause 5 it stated that employers may employ youths in or about the work of flax-milling at not less than £1 Is from 15 to 16 years of age, etc. The Court was yesterday asked to interpret whether a youth between the ages of 15 and 21 years could be employed at a weekly wage to do such work for which only a piecework rate of wages is fixed under the first clause mentioned. Secondly, was the employment of youths at the weekly wages provided in the second clause above (clause 5) restricted only to those operations for which a weekly or an hourly payment is prescribed in the first mentioned clause (clause 4). Prior to hearing argument, His Honour and associates journeyed to Seifert’s Miranui mill to inspect the new automatic scutcher in use there. On their return Mr A. Seifert addressed the Court and emphasised that if the mlilers could not employ youths at this particular work, thou when could they employ them? Further, the work was within the capacity of youths not only for the sake of the industry, but also, for the benefit of eases where -there were large families.

9 Mr C. H. Speirs, speaking for the Millers’ Association, said they felt they were justified in employing wages men or youths on scutching, because under clause 5 employers were allowed to employ youths “in or about the work of flaxmilling,” and scutching was part of that work. The. automatic scutcher was not a new machine, having been used 19 years ago when scutchers were employed on day wages. It had been the custom for millers to have scutching and cutting done from time to time for years past by wages men and by youths. By the automatic scutcher under discusdon, the quality of work was much improved, and was consistent throughout, enabling the miller to obtain a more uniform grade or quality of fibre. The work was not strenuous, and could he efficiently performed by any youth with even a moderate amount of intelligence, danse 13 stipulated that work might be done m the piece-work principle, but it did not make it obligatory—the employer could if ho chose, have it done by wages men only. Clause 23 seemed to confirm that view because it said “when paddocking is done by piecework, etc.,” thereby admitting ihat wages rates might be adopted ,f so desired. The speaker claimed that the Association had an admission by letter from the Employees’ Union that scutching could be done on day wages provided it cost the miller more to do so. It apjreared that the Union was quibbling and endeavouring to make the business of flaxmilling more difficult. If the employers were going to be dictated to by the workers, then the sheds would become unmanageable. Mr W;. Bromley, Union’s advocate, submitted that the employing of youths where the award stipulated piecework was never contemplated when the award was framed. The automatic scutcher was working in precisely the same way now as it was when the award was made and ever since there had been awards, scutching had been fixed at piece-work rates. The youths’ clause had been allowed to pass without contention by the Union because it had been submitted that the employment of youths had never been put into practice. Mr. Bromley emphasised that the awards had been made by mutual agreement ever since 1915 and no new change having taken place, the Union held that the clause should bo allowed to stand until the award expired, when there would be an opportunity to discuss an amendment.

His Honour, in intimating that tl.e Court would consider the matthat all that could be given was an interpretation of :!,(> clauses befor the Court.' Some of the discussion appeared to be more relevant to an application for a change in the award. Mr. Seifert, in answer to His Honour, stated that the automatic scutcher in his mill was putting through 4 tons per day. He also explained details of the machine and its working for the benefit of the Court.