AMERICAN MILLS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20094, 25 November 1930, Page 15

AMERICAN MILLS.

exemption from award SOUGHT. ARGUMENT in arbitration COURT. A decision that trill be of considerable importance to contractors for threshing was sought in the Arbitration Court yesterday, when J. A. Foster and Jj, lionald made application to be exempted from the terms of the North Canterbury Threshing Mills Employees' award. Mr Justice Frazer presided over the Court, and with him oa the Bench were ■Mr W. Cecil Prime, employers' representative, and Mr A. h. Monteith, employees' representative.

Mr J). X, AJacdoiiald appeared to support the petition of the two employers and Mr C, J3. Baldwin appeared on behalf ft the North Canterbury Threshing Mills Employees' Union. _ Mr Baldwin objected to the applies tions altogether. He maintained that the.) should have no claim for variation when othera who worked under similar conditions had asked for no variation, and were complying with the recjuire.mcTjta of the award for the class of work.

His Honour What is all your i'us6 about, Mr Baldwin, Where there la a tin mill that does not travel far is it necessary for men to have a whare, and a qoolt, to see that they get their food properly? That is the question. Mr Baldwin: The men must havti a whare for the purpose of shelter. Ju some cases therp is an arrangement made between the farmer and the contractqr for the men to get meals at th« farmer's house. His Honour: How can the contractor do that and eomply with the terms of the award? That should net be so, that is obvious. Mr Baldwin agreed with Mr Fraaer on that point, but added that the men should have the whare in which to repose or take shelter. lii» Honour: What about the rnan who threshes for neighbours and takes the men with him each day P Mr Baldwin: That ni&y be the csß<| of some contractors, but the reason is that they have not extended their eon? trading. They might easily do so. H'.M. Honour: Why not add a general condition to the award so that in the iSase of ajiy American or similar mill (hat operates in a confined £rea }t shall be sufficient with the award for the contractor to arrange meals and transport to the satisfaction of the employees T Mr Baldwin: And that to apply to two men only? His Honour: There might bo others. Bad Weather. Mr Baldwin: There are storms of rain, and other climatic vagaries to bo considered, and the men must have the whare for shelter. Otherwiso there was u constant danger to their health. His Honour: That can be provided for without dragging a travelling wharu. _ Mr Baldwin: It is not a ''kid-glove" job, the men perspire. Then cornea a storm, and with no whare in which to change their clothing there is & danger that their health may be imbark in a business of thin nature then they should be prepared to »tand by the regulations govern it. Hia_ Honour; 1 4m afraid that vour logic if not quite sound, Mr Baldwin. Jt docs not that b@c<iute certain different conditions apply in oae case i$ should fce bound by rules; made for conditions of a different nature, Why not let the contractor tajte his employees to the farmer's house providing the coneyance?

Mr Baldwin: Then it would be better to make the farmer a party to the award.

His Honour: You cannot do that. Do you not think that adequate arrangement could be made instead of a whare.

®®'dwin: It might be an umbrella. His Honour; That is absurd, 8S besides being inadequate it woulc} not bo countenanced by an inspector for a minute. Yqu must know that. Mr Baldwin: I do not know about that. In some cases it is "Bafferty rules" now. Suggested Clause. liis Honour: Now, Mr Baldwin, let us §et down to brass t&cjcs. I would put store you for the benefit of this application a clause. It could be something after this styld: "That in the case of American and piroilar ijjilJg operating within a radius of 10 mile* from their base it will be sufficient compliance with the conditions of the award relating to the provision of acr commodation and cooking facilities (Clauge 8 of thp award), if the employer (a) conveys the workers to and from the employer's headquarters each day; (b) arranges, when the worker does not supply his own weals, for tha supply of sufficient and substantial meals to the workers at the usual times and at reasonable prices; and (c) malfeq provision of sufficient shelter or convgyr ance thereto in crsg Inclement weather interrupts the worjc." Does" that cover the dispute adequately Mr Baldwin? Mr Baldwjn: No, sir. There arc instances when it is impossible to get shelter, and workers are ■ thus in danger of contracting diseases. Tin mills, in another decade, will be in much more general use, apd if such clauses are allowed to creep in there is a 4 an gor of worker?' conditions reverting to what they once were, although I trust such will not be the case. I can remember, when I worked on mijls, sleeping in thq straw stack, and it wis a "catch as catch can" fps-m of living. No, I cajinot agree to anything but the stipulated whare, ete., provided by the award. Hardship Alleged. .Air ITacdonald pointed out thftt o$ the 160 who were parties to the award 30 ivero owners pf tin mills, snd very few of thoqp jJO were farming contractors. It was 9 hardship to eypect thoafe owners operated within a radius of si? .miles or evgn 10 to have to comply with the clause of the aiya,rd under discussion.

Both the applicants gave evidence fironi the floor of the Court as to the conditions under which tjieir mills were operated, and maintained that it did not eeein equitable that arrangement? that had been tlig cause of no com: plaints from the employees, and had been in operation for some seasons, Should be wiped out because of a clause in the award which eould not apply to those conditions. The Court, reserved its decision.