ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16264, 15 July 1918, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS. The. Court of Arbitration—his Honour Mr Justico Stringer, Mr W. Scott (employ'W representative), and Mr J. A. McCullougli (employees' representative)—sat on Saturday mornin?. MALTSTERS AND BREWERS. Application was made for tho confirmation of tho industrial agreement arrived at into an award of the Court. Both parties agreed to an alteration in tho wages clause to provide that the payment of right hands should be 3s extra per week, or at that rate weeikly ha.uds to receive, and to give, one week's notice of termination of engagement. Tho application was granted, the award to operate as from July lot, 1918. RANGE WORKERS' DISPUTE. In this dispute Mr H. Broadhead appeared for the employers and Mr H. McKeon for the Range Workers' Section of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Tho employers put in tlio old award as counterclaim.

The principal demands of the Union were: \Vages of oven, ash-pan, funnel, and legistet makers, range fitters, aJid polishers, Is 5Jd plus 2d war 'l>omis (old rate Is 4d); grinders and body fitters, la 4d plus 2d war bonus (old rate Is 2d). Overtime: At the Tate of time and a quarter for first"two hours, -time and a half for next two hours, double tima thereafter. Additional holidays, January 2nd and Show dayß. A bicyclo allowance of 2d per mile and a dirty work clause were also asked for. Mr Broadhead said that the employers could not agree to tho extra holidays, or to the overtime rates, or to the bicyclo allowance and dirty work clause. His Honour said that he thought they were all agreed that when the employer requested an employee to use his bicycle the employee should receive some compensation.

Referring to the Union's claim for extra payment for dirty work—repairs effected away from the shop—Mr McKeon stated that at present some firms allowed Is per day for dirty work. Evidence respecting the nature of the work classed as dirty—the dismantling of ranges —wao given. Evidence was also given an behalf of the Union respecting -the increased wages asked for. George Scott, of Scott, Bros., Ltd., called by Mr Broadhcad, stated that the men em-, pfoved by him were not at present turning out" the same amount of work as compared with 1914, when 22 were employed, as compared With 7 at prcecnt—tie ruen were not lazy hut there was not ibo work for them. The' falling off in the building trade had effected the range-making trade. If wages were increased ho could not recoup himself, as he attributed some of tho falling off m business to the increase of 25 per cent, in the price of ranges. In the event of wages being increased he would have to close down —he had already cloeed down the range shop and transferred tho men to the fitting ehop. To 3*lr McKeon: Witness did not know anything about Dunedin conditions except that Mr" Shacklock had told him thai he was losing money, and would be very glad to get out of the business. "Witness did not know whether the wages in Dunedin had been offered voluntarily by the employers. S. Gregg, foreman at Scott Bros., gave evidence aa to the condition of the trade in Christchurch—the business was falling away, and the big shop waa practically cmnty. , , His Honour eaid that the only real argument for the Union, and it waa one that carried considerable weight, waa the fact that tho Dunedin employers, with whom the Christchurch employe™ were in competition, had given ao increase. Mt Broadhead eaid thai toero might ne conditions in Dunedin that differed from conditions in Christchurch—the building trade might be briefer. His Honour remarked that on the evidence given it might be far from a benefit to these workers to increase might be the last straw that would break -the industry. Mr ifcKeon eaid that there would be no trouble in transferring the men to other branch** of the engineering trade. His Honour stated that the Court would taki time to consider the matter. The Court roee tiQ 10 Jkm, this UK/ruing.