DAIRY WORKERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 August 1922, Page 7

DAIRY WORKERS.

APPLICATION for an award. REJECTED BY THE COURT. Application was made by the Taranaki Dairy Workers’ Union to the Arbitration Court in Wanganui on Friday last for an award. This is the first application made by the union, and the wages asked were £5 weekly. Mr. F. Lyons appeared for the union, and Mr. Bishop, secretary for the Employers’ Federation, for the employers. Mr. F. J. Lyons said that the union had been faced with difficulties of organisation and had reorganised twice. It. had met the employers on several occasions, but there was no settlement. He had no witnesses, and threw himself on the mercy of the court. The Southland and Otago awards would be accepted as a basis of an award. He rejected the employers counter-terms entirely. He complained that the union had not been fairlytreated by the employers, and it has cost the union pounds and pounds to arrive at the little agreement already reached. One of the difficulties was the preference clause, but the union was prepared to accept the court’s clause. Mr. Bishop called Mr. Lyons. Witness said he was a bricklayer by trade, but was now secretary and organiser for five unions, including the Dairy Workers' Union. The organisation of this union was undertaken by him at the request of the workers. It was not a requisition in the ordinary’ sense. He was asked to help at a meeting held at Manata, where 30 workers were present, and they requested him to form and register the union. When registered the union contained 170 members. It had been reorganised since tho beginning of the year, and now had 146. He could not say definitely the number of financial members stated on the last annual return to the Labor Department. The union was organised because of dissatisfaction with wages and conditions. He understood that the minimum wages in 1920-21, by agreement, was £3 15s for casual hands. The first assistants, he believed, were getting £4 to £4 ss. He was nc a dairy worker, and had no personal knowledge of wages and conditions. He would be prepared to accept the statement from the employers that £4 10s, with allowances equal to 255, were paid to first assistants. Considering that Taranaki was the home of the dairying industry, he thought that it might be possible to get better condition than provided In the Southland or Otago awards. Either would be acceptable to the Taranaki Union. Mr. Bishop pointed out that if those awards were accepted as a basis the union would be accepting less than what the men were now receiving. “NO CASE MADE OUT.’’ Addressing the court, Mr. Bishop said that there had been no case made out for the union. He regarded the case as an attempt by a professional union secretary to organise a union in an industry where it was entirely unnecessary. The relationship between the employers and employees were cordial. There had been no award made since 1909, and the conditions were so satisfactory that the union ceased to exist In 1910. During the time increased prices were received for produce the wages of workers were increased from time to time, and the men, he contended, were entirely satisfied with the wages. Mr. Reardon: Are the employers’ counterproposals indicative of an increase—64s for a 65-hour week? Mr. Bishop: Also 30s a week additional allowances. He went on to refer to Conciliation Court proceedings at which the employers were prepared to give wages that were higher than those embodied in the Otago award, but the union presesd for a preference clause, which the employers would not accept. He contended that there was no reason for making an award. No evidence in support had been produced, nor had there been any evidence that a sufficient number of workers to represent the industry had joined the union. There were about 600 workers in the industry. Mr. Lyons referred to the difficulties of organisation in such a scattered district as Taranaki. Conditions were at sixes and sevens, and he contended that it was necessary to have an award in the district. He understood that the employers had held a meeting recently, when the schedule of rates and conditions had been revised. As soon as the award was given more workers would join the union. Mr. Scott asked whether Mr. Lyons thought that all that was necessary to produce to the court was a copy of the claims, without any evidence in support. Mr. Lyons replied that, owing to financial matters and the scattered nature of the district, it was impossible to produce witnesses. They could not see their way financially even to bring their organising secretary to Wanganui. The court retired to consider the preliminary point raised. Upon resuming a few minutes later. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer said the court had been asked to decide two questions. The first was whether the membership of the union was such that it constituted a union sufficiently representatives of the workers of the industry to justify the making of an award. From information given to the court, it would appear that when the last annual return wu? made the membership was hardly sufficient, but since then it had reached 147, and as there were over 600 workers in the industry this number could be regarded as equal to onefourth. No hard-and-fast rule existed as to the number of members required to make a union representative of an industry: it varied i with the circumstances. It was presumed that organisation work was more difficult in the country than in town, and under the conditions of the scattered nature of the industry the court was satisfied that 25 per cent, of the total number of workers would make the union sufficiently representative, and would entitle the court to make an award. LACK OF INFORMATION. The second point was whether the court had sufficient information before it to enable it to make an award. This was the first application made for an award in the industry in Taranaki, at least for a considerble time. The parties had been working under an unregistered agreement, and until quite recently no suggestion of an award had been made. Before the court could make an award it was necessary that it should have before It evidence as to the conditions existing in the industry at present. The Otago and Southland awards had been made after the court had obtained quite a considerable amount of evidence. The court did not know whether conditions were the same in Taranaki as in the South, or whether they had changed recently. Absolutely no information regarding Taranaki conditions had been given, and the court, if it made an award, would be almost making one by guesswork. It would not be fair, under those conditions, to make an award, for it might be prejudicial to the employers or to the union. The court could not entertain the application for an award. It was at the end of the season, and he suggested that there was plenty of time for the union to make a fresh application and to thresh out the matter in the Conciliation Court again. The application was rather stale, having been made in 1920. Mr. Bishop, on behalf of the employers, withdrew the counter-claims, leaving the ground ready for a fresh start.-—Wanganui Herald.