DAIRY WORKERS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9440, 10 May 1909, Page 2

DAIRY WORKERS.

SUMMARY OF NEW AWARD. Following are the chief provisions in the award in connection with dispute between the Wellington Batter Creamery and ies employee's and the employers: — HOURS AND WAGES. The hours of work in butter and cheese factories shall not exceed severity per week of seven days, exclusive of meal hours. In creameries the hours shall be arranged between employers and workers. Oyertime shall be paid at the _ rate of time and a quarter for first four hours and thereafter at the rate of tim< .*ad a half. The minimum rates of Wages for workers in butter and cheesefactoriesshall.be: (a) Where only one adult other than manager is employed, he Bhall“receive_ not less than 40a per week, with free eleep- . ing accommodation; (b) .where two workers in addition to manager, the first assistant to get 45s and second assistant 40s, both with free sleeping accommodation,; (C) where three or more assistants other than manager, first assistant 50a, second 455, third 40s, all with free Bleeping accommodation; other hands, not including youths, 37s 6d, with free sleeping accommodation ; enginedriver, where first-olass required, 60s ; creamery managers, not less than 40s per week, with firewood, .milk, and suitable living aooommodation. Youths over sixteen may be employed in factories at not less than following rates ; From 16 to 18, 20s per week ; from 18 to 20, 30a per week. Every , worker who shall have worked tor not less than eight months during same year for same employers shall receive 14 days’ holiday on foil pay ; other workers in proportion to length of service, which must, however, exceed two months. A bathroom for use of workers shall he provided at all hotter factories where two or more workers are employed. Piece work shall not be allowed. Employers"shall he entitled to have all or any part*|of their work done by contract, but sub-contractors must observe xoonditions of award. No employer shall discriminate against any member of the unoin, nor shall any employer In the conduct of his business do anything directly or indirectly for the purpose of injuring the union. The award shall come into force on May 31st, 1909, and shall continue in force until March 81st, 1910. , “It was contended on henalf of the employers,’’ observed the ,Oourt in a memorandum, ‘‘that the present case waa one in which the Court should refuse to make an award. Evidence was called to prove that inflated prices had been obtained in recent years for dairy products, with the; result that prices out of ail proportion to realgvalue bad been paid for lands purchased in recent years for dairyng purposes. Most of the dairy faotories belong really to the dairy farmers in the districts where they are situated. As, in view of experts it .is certain that reduced prices Will be obtained in the future’ for djpry products, ana that land values must suffer a serious reduction in consequence, it was claimed that the owners of dairy faotories flhouiS be left with a free hand With regcpd to wages and other conditions. There would have been some readon for this claim if it had been proved that extravagant wages had been paid in the past to the workers employed in these factories. Nothing of the, sort, however, was proved, and it cannot be said that wages suffered any undue inflation Wn sympathy with dairy products knd Kadi ‘ “If nothing more than fair wages have been paid in the past, it is not ' reenable to ask that factory' owners 3*'3Ulb he free to reduce them merely .feostyse a number of farmers have ■foeeci M.o unwise as to pay extxavhgdotly high prices for dairying %tmd> 4 , . ~ Mr Pryor, who appeared for the employers, repudiated the suggestion that his applications amounted to saying that the employers desired to be at liberty, if necessary, to sweat the workers in the factories. If, however, they hare paid only fair wages in the past, arid do not desire to pay anything less in the future, why should they object to an award which will notjoblige them to do more than that? Employers in Taranaki and Canterbury have recognised the necessity for regulation by respectfully entering into ah industrial agreement. “We think,’’ continued the Court, “that no valid reason has been adduced for refusing to make an award In the present case. In view, however, of the present state of the industry, there should not be any alteration in the present conditions, and the rates of wages ’.fixed by the award are those offered by the employers, with only one modification, viz., in the case of hands other than those specifically mentioned. The employers offered 35s par week as a minimum for those workers, and the Court had fixed the minimum at 87s 6d per week. The rates fixed by the award represent about the average of the wages nqw paid in the factories, and are less than those payable 7 under the industrial agreement in Taranaki. “The employers asked that, if an award were made, no limitation should be imposed as to the number of * hours to be worked. We are satisfied that not less than ten hours per day are necessary for the daily work in cheese the busy part of tthe season. The boars are fixed at ten per day by the Taranaki agreement, bnt, even this restriction according to the evidence of Mr Singleton, Government Dairy Instructor, led to hasty work, and deterioration in the quality of the cheese produced. In order to give greater latitude we have fixed the hours at seventy per week. This we think ought to enable the work to be done without increased [’expenditure in the shape of payment of overtime. The time required for the daily work in butter factories is less than that in cheese faotories, as some factories manufacture cheese at one time and butter at another, the Court has decided not to make any distinction between the two classes of faotories. The Canterbury award, which does not include cheese faotories, fixes fcho hours of work at fifty-two per work during six months of the year, and forty-four during fhe remainder of the year.”