ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16266, 17 July 1918, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. Tie Arbitration Court continued its sittings yesterday. His Honour Mr Justice Stringer presided, and with him were Messrs W. Soott (employers' representative) and J. McCullough (employees' representative). , BUTCHERS' DISPUTE. In the matter of jtho dispute between the Chris tchurch Butchers' Union and tho Canterbury Master Batchers' Association, Mr Broadhead appeared {or the employers and Mr J. Robertson for the bnion. 'Mr Robertson stated that an almost complete agreement had been arrived at, only two matters being in dispute. The first, asked for by the Union, dealt with th© ten holidays allowed during the yeer, and was to the effect that in calculating the weekly hours of work (52) the specified holidays should count as 8J hours of work. The employers opposed the proposal. The Union representative said the clause had been in the awards governing tho trade for sixteen years, but had been left out of the last one by accident. Mr Broadhoad contended that the clans® had not worked well, as claimed. If the usual half-holiday had to be given as well as the fnll day it meant that much inconvenienco was caused to the employer and business was lost. .... ~ Tho Court intimated that it would consider the question. t • The second point was raised by the employers, who wished the word ' war to be inserted in iront of the word "bonus* in, the agreement. There was no idea when tho agreement was made that the addition was other than a war bonne, and as matters now stood it looked like an inoreased fiat rate. Mr Robertson said he did not consider .ho bonus was a war bo dub, and he did not think tho Union assessors would have signed the agreement if it had been recognised that it was a war bonus. _ The Court reserved its division on this point also. AN INTERPRETATION "WANTED. *The Canterbury Brush and Broom Workels' Union (Mr H. Hunter) asked for the Court's interpretation of certain clauses tn the existing award, which were stated to be ambiguous, and over which differences had arisen between employers and workers. Tho difforences related to payment of holidays f or wekely hands, the liability of employers to pay the minimum wag© to employees who had not been at tho trade for more than five years, and to female workers who had served five years at the trade, but not in one department, and as to whether a worker employed in bair-bru6h making was entitled -to claim the minimum wage if he had not served five years, and various other details. After hearing evidence from both sides, it was "decidcd to adjourn the matters until the next sitting of the Court, so that a friendly agreement as to the points at issue could be come to between the parties if possible. In the ovent of that not taking place the Court would give® an interpretation. This concluded the present sitting.