IMPORTANT DECISION

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4439, 12 April 1930, Page 4

IMPORTANT DECISION

IN FLAXMILLING DISPUTE. NEW RATES AWARDED. Palmerston N., April 11. Described as having a grave effect on the flax industry, an important decision was given by the Court of Arbitration in Palmerston North last evening, when new rates were fixed for certain methods of cutting the green fibre. Proceedings were originally instituted last November, but were adjourned pending the conducting of a test by both parties to the dispute. The Bench found itself in the curious position of having to adhere to a retrospective judgment, which was accepted with considerable misgiving by the employers. Mr Justice Frazer presided, with him on the Bench being Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr L. M. Monteith (employees’ representative). The parties to the dispute were the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers and the New Zealand Flaxmillers’ Association. Mr P. T. Robinson (secretary) appeared for the union, Messrs A. Seifert and H. T. Greedy representing the association. Application was made last November by the Manawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers, in pursuance of clause 22 of the Wellington flaxmills employees’ award, dated Juno 28, 1927, to the Court of Arbitration at Palmerston North for an order fixing a fair and equitable rate of payment for cutting flax by what is known as the “A” and “cone” shape methods. Clause 22 of the award provides: “In the event of new machinery being introduced into any flnxmill, or new process of manufacture being adopted which alters the nature or amount of work necessary in connection with any operation in the manufacture of hemp the rates of pay for such work shall be arranged by mutual agreement between" the Employers’ Association and the union. Failing such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Inspector of Factories for the district, and if his decision is not acceptable to either party, the matter shall be referred to the Court of Arbitration for settlement.”

Known as the “A” and “cone” shape methods, new processes of cutting flax were introduced and a dispute arose regarding payment. On May 19, 1929, the Inspector of Factories for the district sat as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of clause 22, and on June 7,. 1929, he issued an award fixing the rate of 12s 6d per ton for the “A” shape method and 10s 3d per ton for the “cone”' shape method as the basis of payment. The union concerned was of opinion that the rate fixed was too low, and in consequence was unable to accept it. It asked that the Court of Arbitration should fix the rate of payment in pursuance of the powers reserved to it under clause 22 of the award, and made application accordingly. After hearing evidence at the last sitting the Court adjourned tlie case until a test had been conducted to ascertain actual conditions. GRAVE INJUSTICE LTKELY. “Unfortunately, we have found the trial to be misleading,” stated Mr Alfred Seifert when the case was resumed yesterday afternoon. “There would be a grave injustice done to the flax industry if the rates were made too high,” he added, “while if they were fixed too low, it would lie doing a similar injustice to the workers. The difficulty of bringing definite evidence before the Court is that, unless the tests were taken under observation, they are not acceptable.” “I understand the difficulty,” commented Mr Justice Frazer, “but the Court was asked to fix the rates, and without definite evidence before it on the previous occasion, it could not make a decision. I don’t think that there was any question of the admissibility of the evidence. It was inconclusive. We wanted information which would enable us to determine the ability ol the men and the quality of the flax.” “My long experience over a period of forty years has taught me to doubt the accuracy of such a test as has been conducted for the fixing of a comparative rate,” said Mr Seifert, “when it depends solely on the efforts of the men. Our Flaxmillers’ Association has protested against it.” “We cannot help that,” said Mr Justice Frazer. “Both sides came along and asked us to accept something. Your material may be all right so far as it goes, but it is challenged by the other side. Both expressed dissatisfaction before and the Court suggested a test, to which both agreed. 1 understand that it was .honestly conducted.”

“Wo have no doubt about the honesty of the men/' said Mr Seifert, “but the results were so contrary to the long experience which wo have had that we could not accept them. I take it that the Court does not want to make a mistake in this matter. We could not. as representatives of the Elaxmillers’ Association, rely on the test, as wo knew that it was wrong. We know the difficulties, but we suggest that the Court send a representative to investigate the whole matter. The books will be open tor inspection, and the men can be interviewed.” Replying to Mr Mpjiteith, it was admitted by Air Seifert that the test bad previously been agreed upon, but tlie Court bad to make a correct decision. Air Justice I*'razor: Wo realise all that. Wo wanted to fix the rates before, but did not have sufficient material before us. Air Seifert : Well, bow are we to obtain it? Air Justice E razor: Both sides agreed to the test and if it was not conducted satisfactorily we will throw it out; yet you tell ns that it wap quite fair, but misleading. Air Seifert: So far as I could see, tlie men were not loahng, but 1 or any other man could slow up thirty per cent, and i. defy any man to pick it. I could work bard on one method and slow up on another. The result of the test is contrary to past experience with thousands of tons, and it is my duty as representative of the association to make that .statement. However, if the Court likes to take upon itself the responsibility of fixing the rates on that basis, wo will have to abide by its decision. EXPIRATION Ob AWARD. Mr J ustiee if razor : This award has now expired. If the rate fixed for the methods is considered unprofitable by the millers, 1 take it that they will not use them. 1 wonder if any better test can be obtained Limn that to which both sides committed themselves. Really the matter has been taken out of the bands of the Court. It might bo that the men were unconsciously not putting forth tlieir best, but there would be difficulty in providing it. Members of this Court could not spend weeks watching the men and making up tlieir minds if they were putting tlieir best into the job. The only way of settling the matter, apart from a test, is for both sides to agree on an expert to investigate the whole matter and make the settlement retrospective. Air Seifert said that' would be reasonable, as the men would be seen engaged under the usual working conditions. • The only other way, to bis mind, was to fix a minimum rate. Explaining the nature of the test, Air H. T. Greedy, who supported Mr Seifert, stated that on one method three men maintained an output equivalent to five tons for an eight hour day. That could not be approached under ordinary conditions, proving that the test was inconclusive. Efforts could not be sustained over two sue-

cossive runs on one method. On the j “A” shape and diamond methods the mi'll improved as they went along. Mr B- T. Robinson slated that the tests were conducted in three hour runs, with a spell between each. Air Justice Frazer (to Mr Greedy):

You are assuming that the men went “eyes out” on the first run and eonld not maintain the rate on the second f —Yes.

His Honour commented that when the first inn commenced two hours after work had begun, and the second five hours afterwards, there could conceivably ho a difference in the respective rates of progress. Mr Robinson: The millers are trying to make this an evcrlasLing dispute. We both agreed to the test. When it was finished I asked the manager if lie was satisfied with the men s work, .and lie replied that he was. The flax was taken to the mill and weighed. Now we find that the millers object, saving that, the test was misleading. It is’the only possible way to obtain satisfactory results The millers have absolutely no reason whatever for objecting to th(> price of 13s 2d for 'he “cone” method and Ins for the “A” method, as worked out by the test. “Fortunately there is no dispute as to what terms wore agreed upon for the test,” commented Mr Justice Frazer. “I was rather apprehensive about that. it was suggested that each method should he under test for a week, but tire parties were left to make their own arrangements. They agreed to make a 'shorter tesL of three hours each. Perhaps that was a mistake. Still, both went into it with their eyes open. it is not suggested that there has been any dishonesty. Three men were selected, the union choosing one, the millers another and the third being mutually decided upon. We know that human nature is weak and that we cannot guard against ali of its. frailties. THE PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED. “The principle ol the test was accepted." lie continued, "and it w is definitely agreed upon that any rates should he retrospective to November 15. II there had not been .such a definite acceptance ol the test, llie Court could ni'it have ruled that it should he made retrospective. The Court might have said tluiL the eircumstalives were open lor the conducting of mother lost, hut it is precluded from doing that by its own judgment, which' if must adhere to. That was that the test agreed upon by both parties would he accepted by the Court is iLs own judgment. The Court cannot possibly depart from that judgment. It might he that the Lost, was misleading. Ini! thal was unlortunate. If both parties chose to reduce the lime suggested, that is their funeral, not ours. Tire Court has no option Inn to lix the rates which the test shows ol 13s 2d for the "A" shape method and Ins for the "cone" .shape method- to he retrospective to November In. 1929. FUTURE OPERATIONS. “Now this award has expired, said Air Justice Frazer. "There is a possibility tbit I lie rates and conditions may he amended at any time. II the rates are excessive and unprofitable to the millers. I take it that the union will he quite willing to meet, them and discuss some other workable method which will operate in till' satisfaction of all concerned. Air Seilort (to Air Robinson, the union representative): lienicmb :r that. "I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the lest carried out was good, had or indifferent." added Air Justice Frazer. Air Seilert: i implore you to iix a minimum rate. it is a very grave matter for the industry. i have been in it forty years .and know that there will he no pssihle chance ol arranging another suitable test. Air Justice Frazer : I take u i.liaL il the rates of payment are too great lor I lie millers to meet, I lien they wiii not use the ineLlnxls concerned. 11. will lio futile fixing the rates il nolxiily is going to pay them. If the position is like that, then the m,titer must be settled between yourselves in a reasonable. manner. In any event, with the expiration of the award, either party can bring the nintler before the Court again. Whichever makes -application, however, should lake my advice and have the little intricate .questions settled outside the doors ol the _ Court. An hourly rate can he. lixod during the currency of the award il application is made for that purpose. “Thank you. Your Honour, said Air Seifert, “hill we have never been able to agree at any time." Air Seiler I intimated that the new conditions forced upon the industry would mean reductions in the amount of labour employed.