DAIRY WORKERS’ DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 900, 18 February 1930, Page 11

DAIRY WORKERS’ DISPUTE

EMPLOYERS SEEK RENEWAL OF AWARD MEN WANT 48-HOUR WEEK More than 60 dairy and cheese factories in the Auckland district were affected by a claim for a new award made by the employers to cover the Auckland creamery, cheese and butter factory workers. The employers* claims, which were advanced by the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company, were for the same conditions as in the old award, including: a 60-hour seven-day week lor buttm* and cheese factory employees between July 14 and May 14. The workers’ demands were for an Increase of wages amounting to approximately Gs 6d all round, and a 48-hour six-day week. For the employers. Mr. S. PL Wright pointed out that with small exceptions the employers asked for a renewal of the old award. In the four previous disputes in this industry, which the court had dealt with, the points had been thoroughly threshed out, and he ("•aimed the union must show changes That had taken place since the previous award warranted any alteration in those provisions. Mr. "Wright submitted a statement to the court showing that since the first award was tnade in 1918 hours of work in butter lactories had decreased from 60 to 56 a week during the flush season, and during the winter months the hours had remained at 44 a week. The hours had decreased in cheese factories from 70 to 60 a week in the flush season, from 60 to 4S in mid««ason, and from 40 to 30 in winter. Notwithstanding this wages had steadily increased from £3 0s 6d to £4 Is in 1926. He argued that the employees’ demands for a 48-hour week were unreasonable and uneconomical in a seasonal occupation. The employment of extra hands to permit workers one usy off In seven would be unwarrantable expense. Mr. Wright contended that the union had no grounds for asking for an increase in rates, no changes in working conditions having taken place since the increase of Id *n hour was granted in the 1925-1926 awards. Prices of farm produce were on the down grade, and cost of living had been practically stationary. On behalf of the union. Mr. Jas. Roberts declared that the long hours dairy workers were compelled to serve and the low wages paid them constituted a grave danger to the standard of living. He pointed out ihat employers in no other industry allowed to work their men 60 hours on a seven-day week for nine months of the year without paying overtime. The worst feature was that at the end of the nine months the men thrown out of employment. He argued there was no reason why butler factory workers should be compelled to serve 60 hours a week of seven days, and work under somewhat similar conditions in cheese factories. He emphasised that dairy Workers were paid only J s 5d an hour compared with labourers, who were I*&id at the rate of Is lOd an hour, the union asked for the raising m the standard of wages to Is lOd an Hour, which was the lowest rate for unskilled workers. Mr. Roberts went on to support the t *° r il 4S-hour week, and contented that there was now no need for Protection of the industry, which was ®n a sound financial footing. The cla * me d that the men were enX x* to 3off in seven. ...M**- Roberts concluded by stat.ng nat some of the men were unwilling evidence fearing that they would not be given employment next 3*?on. he said, and he suggested net the court should guarantee these its protection. (Proceeding.)