ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16265, 16 July 1918, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURCK SITTINGS. *

The Court of Arbitration resumed its sit- ' tings in Chriatchurch yesterday morning, before his -Honour Mr Justice Stringer, Mr .W. Scott representative), and Mr J. A. McCullougb (employees' leprcsentative). PKINTEBS' MACHINISTS. In the dispute between the femalo section of the Canterbury Printers' Machinists Union and. the employers, Mr C. ilenn ftp* i peared for the union and Mr It. T. Watkins for the employers. . The principal matter in dispute was the question of the desirableness of the women employees having a separate union. Mr Ronn quoted the provisions of the Act on the subject. ; ~ Mr Watkins, replying to his Honour, said the objection of the employers to the belonging to tlio men's union was tno ixnprcH priety of young girls of 15 or 16 years of perhaps younger—mixing with men" at the union meetings and being dominated by them. The employers were willing to aBSWt the women's union in every possible way* His Honour Baid there was no question as to the legal position—the union had a perfect right to open its doors to women workers. It was a matter of convenience, and apparently the union considered it woa convenient that the union should be opened to women. - • . , . . Mr Renn stated that tie points remaining in dispute were: The union's objection to a definition of women's work, _ its application for a preference ' clause similar to that. in the tailors' and . tailoresses' award, its Obi jection to provision being made for P lec^r

Work",~and'ita request that the-award should bo made terminable oil April lßt, 1920. The objection to piecework was that in the past it tended to produce sweating. ' Mr Watkina said the employers desired to have provision for piecework in order that, i£ found desirable after the war, New Zestland manufacturers would be in a position to produce goods at present being imported. Evidence on the question of piecework was given by B. Martin, eecretary of the Auckland Union, and R. Ferguson, secretary of the Otago Union. The last mentioned mitted that there would be no objection to pieoework if it was provided that the piecework rates were faced so that the girls would bo guaranteed the minimum wage. Mr Watkinß handed in to the Court a statement signed by eight women employees of Weeks, Ltd., expressing satisfaction wiUi the wagee earned on piece rates. Mr Watkins quoted the wage# earned by the women employees of Weeks, Ltd., part time and part piecework, ranging from 27s 9a to 425, as compared with the minimum wage rates of 22s 6d and 80s. Beplying to his Honour, Mr Benn said that, approximately, the women members of the union totalled 70, Mr Watkins said there were about 120 girls employed, and aa far as he had been able to ascertain there were only 87 who were members of the ■union. Mr Watkins advanced reasons for the women being m '» separate union, pointing out that the male assistants were not allowed to belong to the male adults union, while unskilled women were allowed to join it. His Honour remarked that the Court could not prevent the women joining the men's union, but it could refuso to make an ftV^ d 'Watkina Baid he would urge the Court not to make an award. His Honour: You will have to give the Court very strong-reasons. , Mr Watkina said that under the proposals there were a number of women workers who ■were not provided for, and it was desired that any award made should cover all the women employees in tho printing industry— they I were helps 'and not skilled worker®. Mr Benn eaid any attempt to jntlude all the women workers would be frustrated by tho Registrar of Industrial Unions. His Honour pointed out that some ol the difficulties mentioned by Mr Watkins could be got over by granting no preference clause in the award, 1 . Mr Watkins said he was a good nmomst, and the employers had no objection to a fair preference clause. The only way out of the difficulty to hi« mind was a union of all the women workers itfthe trade. Mr Watkins called B. H. Whitoombo and H. Burgess, who gave evidence in support of tho arguments adduced by him, and also C. Benn, the secretary of tho union, • who stated that he was awaro thai employees in certain branches of the printing trade were contemplating demands, but he did not know that the minimum aimed at was £6 per After hearing Mr Watkins and Mr Benn, his Honour intimated, that tho Court would tako time to consider the matter.

MOTOR MECHANIOS. In this dispute Mr J. F. Cousins appeared for the employers and Mr H. McKeown for the union. The • points in dispute weio hourß, wages, overtime, and assistants. Mr McKeown said that in asking for a 41' hours' week they did eo because of the exacting and fatiguing nature of the work. For a 44 hours' week they asked wages to be fixed at la lOd per hour. The unioft strongly urged that provision should bo made for apprentices, instead of learners as proposed by the employers. The union also desired that the clause dealing with apprentices should provide that the apprentice should spend lour . hours weekly _at the Technical College in the employer's time. Mr Cousira 6aid it was erroneous to Bay that the motor garage business was_al present a profitable and lucrative one. The most profitable port of the business was the eslo of cars, and this had been interfered with owing to the difficulties in connexion with importations.' The repairing portion of the business had been taken on by the majority of employers more for the purpose of making their safes department a success, and for that" reason the repair part of the business had never been put on a sound financial footing and concessions bad been made to customers and employees which were not warranted. Now, in the face oi importing difficulties, the employers had to put the repair portion of their business on a • sound basis, and -were looking to that department to carry them through till times became normal The employers were prepared to offer the employees the agreement accepted in "Wellington and Dtmedin. Figures relating to 20 garagee in Canterbury (representing one-half of tho total) showed that 47 hours per week were worked in eighteen, 48 hours in one, and 45 hours in one. In five years these 20 garages had turned out 30 apprentices, and of these 13 only were regarded by their employers as competent mechanics. .There were no facilities in the garages for. teaching apprentices, and therefore they proposed to provide for learners. Garage proprietors in Chxistchurch had tried tho of sending ajpuiuliccs' to

the Technical College, but it had n , Tin " satisfactory, as they had no powex to keep the ladß at tho classes. _ .... , Evidence aa to the impossibility of . apprentices being taught in garagea was Riven by A. E. Smith and H. J. Ranger. On behalf of tho union evidence on the same point ■was given by Peter Grieve and Robert M Reepecting hours and wages, Mr McEaown said the union attached so much importance to the reduction of hours to 44 that they were prepared to accept Is 7Jd per hour tho minimum rat© of wages. ; His Honour , said the Court would take time to consider the ma.tter. 4 _ j„_ Xho Court adjourned till 10 *jn. to-day.