Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

BREAD BAKING CASE
INDUSTRIAL COURT'S AMENDED AWARD
.THE HOURS OF WORK
SUBJECT iXJii LEGISLATION".
lu ilio Slave Industrial Court tho Pre
sident. (J)r. Jetiiro Brown) delivered judg
ment on triday afternoon in connection
With tae matter oi a submission made
as the Act prescribes, by not less loan
5s) empiujvs engaged in the inaustry 01
making and bX&oig oread, rolls, inu
small goods, 'ihe cafe .bad been before
tae court lor some time, and ttie matter
of the abolition o£ mgnt baking was in
volved. Mr. VV. J. ijenny, AL.O., M.l".,
with Mr. J. J. Daly, appeared for the
employes who signed the submission ana
for the South Australian branch. of the
Bating 'trades Jirupioyes' Federation ot
Au-."traiia- The Adelaide and ijuburban
ilaster Bakers' Association (the respon
dents} were represented by Mi. L. A.
W hitington.
The President said, Inter alia:—"The
claimants m tne present proceedings ask
for a new award as to the hours- oi start
ing and finishing tune in the industry
of the making and baking of bread and
smailgoods. *Xhe statement of claim sug
gests important variations in the terms
of the original award as made in 1S16
ana qua lined by minor modifications of
later date. Early in .the course of the
hearing it was agreed that evidence and
argument should 1>6 directed to t.'ie Ques
tion of the making and baking of bread
(exclusive of rolls and smaligoods gener
ally), on the ground, inter alia, that a
settlement of tnis problem would facili
tate an agreement between the parties
as to the other terms of the award
■without further litigation. The present
judgment is, therefore, limited in ecope
to the subject matter indicated."
—Principles.—
The President, continuing, said:—'Hav
ing affirmed the chief principles which
should guide the court, when adjudicating
upon an application to make a new
award iu variance of the terms of a pre
existing award, I have now to consular
whether conditions have changed, or a
(substantial grievance lias been shown to
exist. I am of opinion that, for the
purposes of the hours of baking, condi
tions hare Hot changed since 1910, when
my original award, was made, in such a.
way as to call for a review of the terms
of that award. I have then to consi
der the further question whether the
claimants in this case have lnide out a
'substantial grievance.' J
- —A Substantial Grievance.— j
"I arrive at the conclusion that the j
operatives have a substantial grievance
which justifies them in approaching
court with a view to seeking a new award
which will, if possible, Tsdress that griev
ance, wholly, or in part. The l<urdcu of
proof as between the parties is thus
shifted, at least, to some extent, on to
the respondents. It was at least 'lor
them to show that * he remedial measures
proposed in the statement of claim and
supported by argument and «-v<dencc
should not be adopted by the court,
"I attach little importance to Mr. Whi
tington's argument, on liebalf "£ the em
ployers, that if the opexati.-es liad not
ijatuiday afternoon oil, they Jiad other af
ternoons off.
—The Original Award.—
"The award of 1S16, inaugurating day
bakmg, has, as between tlia parties in-w
before the court, stood the i;it o£ ex
perience to an extent wnich faJi-ircs the
predictions of those who auiicipatei cata
strophic consequences if night bailing were
not adhered to. It does not follow, how
ever, that the award Jras perfect. Ac
a matter of fact, at the instance oi c^i.er
employers or of employes, S'ma minor
modifications have been made. The
award again, with its minor n>;>d!&cs.tiOiis
has left an outstanding grievance on the
nart of the ooerativea. When
—Asked t° Slate a Siiv A'-.vard—
j involving a variance of the. tdms cf the
I pre-existing award, it foiicsvs that I have
to bear in anud the Uiiiojriag: —{a} Tlifi
I public demand or iirefereace; vl>) the
variety o£ the various buslne-s 2s cs v.rll
as the variety of tlie condi iijnK uulcr
which they work; \c\i iho i-ampititian be
tween employers -xviio own con^r-is or
varying charactti; (d) the soiiiiieiil:cn be
tween the ^employers and die "family
baker3 .who om a business without em
ploying outside lielp; (e) tie oinirfciup
interests and claims of employers and
operatives; ;£) the opposition of the
bread carters to a change in tl.c hours
of the operatives; and (g) the .ntxiiEls
of the ttoughmen. Anyone irho ioilow<<!
with an • open mind tae argument and
evidence iu the. present proceedings >voiild
realise the pitfalls aud enaies whicu c<-n
front nut in endeavoring to secure all
rotmd justice. My consciousness of
—The Pitfalls aud Suaies -
which bcS-t me in an endeavor to devise
an adequate remedy for what I have cu»
; ceded to be a substantial grievance on
Itbe part of the operatives, lid me to
suggest from time to time conferences be
tween pal-ties. The parties Uujw (he
-conditions of the industry, and I felt j
that if tlrey could agree upon some
scheme it would Le more likely to prove
just and practical.e than an award im
posed by the court. At the suggestion
of one or other of the parties, or at my
self, compromises were duly coasid-M-ed by
the parties and ultimately rejected." The
President then referred to the compro
mises suggested, which have already been
published, and. continuing, said: —
"The whole of I lie compromises, their
careful consideration and ultimate re
jection, illustrate the difficulties m mak
ing any satist&ewry amendment to the
existing award where there are so inan>
parties to be considered, and tie charac
| ters of toe businesses and conditions oi
delivery vary so largely. in the net
(result, I can oniy conclude that, while a
prima faeie case was made out by tii«
claimants for the scheme submitted to
the court in me statement of claim,;
Lnat
.—Case Was D^po:-ed of by Ecspon
deate.—
I do net /eel, huvrever, that I -should
be iustiiied m dismissing the claim if
assuming a eubsiantial grievance to
exist, 1 can pojs.bly suggest any pal
liative (even tiiougli nune may iave
been suggested by the parties). isor
do T propose to evade the responsibility
by mtreiy pointing out the advantages'
of a municipal ba&eiy' or bakeries, <jr
the potentialities of a- combination among
'private concerns. Xhere is no trjuul
that -either of these solutions. iu aaii<
tion to the advantage ot offering a pro
mise of a solution or the problem belore
the court, would possess many inciden
tal advantages as regards economy in
deliveij, &e. But it z*
—ily i>uty to laKe Existing Condi
tions—
as they are, and to weigh the conflict
ing interests as best 1 can.
"Tiic common problem, yours, mine,
eveijone'Sj is—not to fancy wliat were
fair in life provided it could be—but,
rinding lirst what may be, then find
how to mase it fair up to our means "
"At the outset 1 may say that 1 do
not propose to adopt the .-cr.emc of hours
prescribed by legislation in Sydney, or
-.tie se/:c-nif. of burs awarded Dy" tlif
Industrial Court of Western Australia
1 will only eay, as regards the iiormer,
that
--Alueh Can Be Done by Legislation
's! cannot be doue by an award of me
?-v;rl, and thai, regards the Western
.<u3tra;ian award, :t appears to me that,
however suited it may be to the coudi
;-oi!s of Perth, its adoption here, at any
rata tave Dy legislation. wou!d seriousty
-jisorgaiiise the local industry. further,
i propoje In my award to :idhere to too
5 j.:n. starting tiir;e. The statement
of claim asks for much later start.
The employers wotild prefer a 4 a.m.
iiart, but in evidence iliey admitted that
they could work along the lines of a
•5 a-m. start. Evidence called on be
hajf of the •empicyrs also admitted tliat
tha S a.m. start wac, tuough not m ail
r"speet.» ideai froiw t-heir point of VIP'A'.
at least productive of no %ery serious
inconvenience. 'l'he general public, or
a large section of iheui. appear io ap
preciate the present system of thp de
liver}' of bread on the day it is oaked.
Again, if a later hour than 5 a.m. were
fixed as a. starting point.. I should b»
apt lo prejudice the hour.-; of
—Worn of the Bread Carters—
to my mind a veir serious matter in
view of tne fact that, proportionately to
the operatives, the bread carters are" the
more numerous body. Another argu
ment in iavor of, delivery of bread on
the same day that it is baVed. where
it Is practicable, may be found in the
evidence tendered in the present pro
ceedings with regard to storage. Sev
eral witnesses gave evidence to the effect
that while storage mieht retard the stal
ing process during the actual period of
swrage, the staling process proceeded
at an enhanced rate. The existing
—Congestion of Wor'-v-at t>ic Week-end—
6cem» to me at present unavoidable, ex
cept by legislation. But, as-suming this
to be so. I -naturally turn to ask whe
ther this grievance can be mitigated.
One possible mitigation, cir compensa
tion, would be to prescribe special over- i
time rates of wage, subject to conditions. '
I have to consider, however, whether this
would be within the province of the
court. In the course 01 the bearing,
having in mind the possibility of this
solution ot an intricate and difficult pro
blem, I submitted for consideration or j
counsel on both sides certain propcei- i
tions. The President then dealt witii |
those propositions waieh have already been '
reported, and, continuing, said:—"I un- <
derstand the learned counsel on both
sides to concur in the propositions stated. !
I am also of opinion that the court has
the necessary jurisdiction. Two matters,
however, call for consideration. In the
first place, the case for the operatives'
was mainly based on the strain involved j
in the congestion or work at the week-1
end; and I was given to understand that
what/ the operatives desired was, not so '
much special overtime rates, as the eli
mination of Friday nig'it work. As re
gards this point, I can only say that
—1 Have to Award—
not what I may desire, ox what tli?
operatives may desire, but what seems to
be the best thing practicable under the
circumstance. But, in the second place,
I have to remember that tie wages 3j!.,ud
has made a determina j'-.n fixing minimum ]
-wages at a rate which must be piesumed
to have regard to an existing scheme o£
hours. It will be that thcie
are objections to 'o wlu% in practical
effect, may am-iunt to a revision of the
rates of wage fixed by the w;:ges board.
I propose to make
—-An Award on the Following General
Lines—
1. Starting and finishing times!—:
Monday, 5 ajn. to It pjn.
Tuesday, 5 a.ji. to o p.m.
Wednesday, 5 am. to 6 p.m.
Thursday, 3 un. to <i p.m.
Friday, 5 a.ji. :o ij 1, in.
Friday (and similar) ni.ctits, fi p.m. to
II a.m. 'he da/ following.
2. The provision for n -9 ho.irsf inter
val between Friday (and ' similar) morn
ings and the night work (oliowiug to be
abolished.
3. An eight iiau-s' imervtl to l'e ob
served, except in bakeries where Friday's
.(or similar day's) work is concluded by
midnight and the operatives are not called
in on the day following.
4. Double overtime rales to be paid—
(a) for time worked outside the hours
prescribed in paragraph 1 (unless allowed
to count as ordinary time by other pro
visions of the award); (b) for hours
worked during the eight hours' interval
referred to in paragraph 3: (c) for time
worked in excess of 16 hours (or in ex
cess of IS bouts on treblo days or nights)
between Friday (and similar days) 5 a.m.
and 11 a.m. of day following.
"I Uave suggested a certain scheme in
—Outline lor tlie Consideration of the
Parties.—
It will be onen to the parties to agree
to any alternative scheme, or to cither
of the parties to make suggestions to me
in improvement thereof when speaking to
the minutes. For the present I content
myself with pointing out. some incidental
merit of the scheme ■which I propose to
<naki> an award. L The public will ob
tain Afresh' bread. 2. The interests of
the carters arc safeguarded. 3. There
-will be a minimum of dislocation in the
industry. 4. An additional inducement
is offered to employers to co-operate with
the employes for the purpose of bring
ing about legislation as to the hours of
work. In the original award in 1916 11
referred to the legislation as being the
proper means of giving effect to day bak
j ing. In the course of the heating in
the present proceedL-gs certain reasons
were given in evidence why the employ
ers had not co-operated with the emDloycs
for the purpose of securing legislation.
Wliile I freely admit that the reasons
were entitled to serious consideration I
feel it would almost amount to contempt
of the 'High Court of Parliament' to
fedmit that I regarded the reasons as
conclusive. When the question of day
baking first came before the court the em
ployers made mucn of the 'menace of the
family baker/ During the hearing in
the pr&seut proceedings, Welch,
master baker, in giving evidence, admit
ted that the menace could be overcome by
legislation. He admitted also that the
claimants for the last three yearn had
ljeen trying to secure the aid of the
master bakers to bring about the neces:
sary legislation to <lo aivay with the men
ace. His explanation was—
—'TVc Refuso to Shackle Other Men as
We are Shackled"
X can only say it is difficult for me to
attach -weight to this answer. I do not
doubt it was meant at the time it "was
said, but it is difficult to suppose that!
the master bakers generally, who, in 1916,1
were so much in fear of the family baker,
should be now so much concerned in the j
interests of the family baker, as to resist j
legislation on his account. The award I:
suggest gives the master bakers a new
inducement to co-operate in that means of
redress winch, to me, seems the most ap
propriate for the puroos? of ensuring jus
tice to all parties concerned."
It was agreed that the minutes be i
snoken to on February 23. j
i * i I
$