ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 44, 15 November 1907, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

COOKS' AND' WAITERS' DISPUTE.

The Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning. Mr. Justice Sim. (President) and Messrs. R, Slater (Workers' Representative) and S. Brown (Employers' Representative) took their seats at 10.30 o'clock.

Mr. W. Pryor informed • the Court that the parties had had another conference, but could agree only as regards three minor clauses.

His Honour said that the dispute would be heard this morning. ■ •

Mr. Pryor: It is stated that the Union intend to call a very large number of witnesses. Somo say one hundred; others up to a thousand. His Honour :"We shall have something to say about that.' Mr. Pryor pointed out that if a large number of employees left their work at the same time to attend the Court, business would be disorganised. Ho understood that, for instance, the chef, second cook, and a kitchen man in tho Royal Oak Hotel would be called. They did not wish to impute that the Union had an ulterior motive, but the employers must ask for the protection of the Court. Mr. Carey (President of tho Union) said that it had been necessary to subpoena a number of the witnesses. He would undertake to see that all the witnesses were instructed to remain at their work until they wero sent for to give evidence. He had already made arrangements in that regard with the proprietors of several large establishments. His Honour impressed upon the parties the fact that only witnesses who could give ovidence bearing on the matters in dispute should be callcu. BUTCHERS' DISPUTE. The hearing of this dispute was then proceeded with. Mr. W. A. Grenfell appeared for the employers and Messrs. A. H. • Cooper and A. Cheesman represented the Union. CASE FOR THE UNION. On behalf of the Union, Mr. Cooper stated that the employees were asking for "dry" pay and meat instead of so much per week and found. If the employers, so desired they could pay the men ss. extra per week each \ instead of providing them with meat. The Union had, on a previous occasion, made a similar claim, but in view of the fact that th eGear Meat Company had gone to considerable expense in providing accommodation for their moil, the Court had declined to grant the claim. As the company had now discontinued providing accommodation for their men generally, the Union with .confidence renewed their claim. The following were, he said, tho minimum rates of wages per week claimed by the Union: first shopman, £3155.; second shopman, £3 os.; third shopman,' £2 165.; first small goodsman, £3 155.; second, small goodsman, £3 55.; third small goodsman, £2 165.; driver of hawking cart, £2 165.: driver of order cart, £2 16s. The proposed rates were 55./ higher all round than the prosent rates. In the opinion of the Union provision should be made for the proper classification of the men. Some employers had a first shopman who was assisted by a man who was sent out with a few orders every day, but who was only classed as a general hand. It. was claimed that a man who was employed in a'.shop of his time should be. classed.as a shopman. An increase of,-wages in respect of casual labour was claimed, the Union holding that each man employed should be paid 12s. per day except when employed on a- Saturday only, when he should receive los. In order, to sccuro a clause providing for apprenticeship, the Union would agree to a substantial reduction in the wages at present paid to lads. The employers complained that there was great difficulty in obtaining competent men. If the lads wero apprenticed it would be a guarantee that they would be taught tho. trade , properly. It was stated by employers that ,only, the .men who came from Australia and elsewhere were fully competent. As things were at present, a lad might be dismissed .when he wa; worth. 30s. per week, and his place would be filled by a kounger lad. The secretary to the Master Butchers' Association had admitted that lads should be paid according to experience. Tho Union would agree to the following scale of wages for apprentices: first year, 10s. per week; second year, 12s; 6d.; third year, 17s. 6d.; fourth year, 255. The proportion of apprentices to journeymen should, tho Union thought, be fixed as follows : for the first three. men of any less number, ono apprentice; for more than three men and up to six men, two apprentices; v and so on in the same proportion. At present the men were working 56 hours per week, but tho Union wore aslting that 50 hours should constitute a working week. His Honour : You want a reduction of the hours as well'as an .increase of wages? Mr. Cooper replied that that was the case. Continuing, ho said; that all the awards in the Dominion excepting the award affecting Auckland, provided for a 56 hours' week. He might mention that 1 in South Australia and New South Wales only -54- hours were worked each week, and .in Victoria only 52 hours.

Mr. Brown (Iho employers' representative) : And now you are asking for a shorter week thaii is worked on the other side? Continuing, .Mr. Cooper-pointed out that, outside Invercargill Borough, Dunedin and city, Christchurch,/Wellington .and suburbs, \\ anganui and Auckland and suburbs, the. employees came under the Shops and Offices Act, and, therefore, only worked 52 hours per week. The Union wero also asking that the hours of labour be regulated. At present, it was impossible to enforce the provision relating to hours. The Labour Department had informed the Union that in order to ascertain the number of hours worked by an employee, it would be necessary to keep a strict watch. The hours of labour should, the Union held," be as follows: Between the hours of 7.30 a.m. and 0 p.m. 011 four days of the week, between the hours of 7i30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. 011 the day on which the weekly half-holiday is observed, and between 7.30 a.m. and 9 p.m. on. Saturdays. At this stage, Mr. Duncan, oil behalf of the pork butchers of Wellington, asked the Court to grant them the .right to work overtime 011 certain conditions. He gave evidence in support of the application, and the Court intimated that tho matter would be' duly considered.

Evidence on behalf of thpfy'nion was given by G. Trigger, W. Richardson, W. Parker, W. Kenny, and W. Newall. THE EMPLOYERS' CASE. On behalf of the country employers, J. Ogilvie and A. Stempa gave evidence. Opening the case for the employers, Mr. Grenfoll stated that hklier wages were paid in the butchery trade than in similar trades. Under the Grocers Award,- the highest minimum wage was £2 os., whereas butchers received £3, besides board worth 10s., or cash, and meat of tho value of ss. The lowest paid class of workers in the butchery trade, with one- exception, received equal to £2 16s. per week. The following were the minimum rates proposed bv the employersFirst shopman, £3; second ditto, £2' 10s.'; small goodsman, £2 los.; general hands, £2 Is.; rider-out (if over twenty-one years of age), £1 2s. 6d. In addition, tho. employers would board adult workers, or, if tliey did not desire to do that, pay 10s. per week extra instead. All married employees (other than those engaged 111 shops in which a pork butcher's business only -was carried oil) would also be allowed meat not exceeding in value os. per week each. The employers could not see what value meat would he. to single men. ■ His Honour: Surely, it must lnive a money value.

Mr. Grenfell said instances had occurred where single men had sold tho, meat presented to them to the employers' customers. It. was, lie might montion, the custom to give married men all tho meat they required, —not to restrict tho quantity to five slid-, lings' worth.

His Honour: Don't you think it would be better to agree to the Union's claim that extra money should be paid in lieu of board ? Mr. Grenfell: In some cases it is found that it suits better to board the men. it could be a matter of arrangement. His Honour: Tho worker should certainly be a consenting party. Mr, Cooper pointed out that both married and Bingle. men creferred the ''ash. The

members of the Union felt very strongly <H the subject. Ho doubted very much if anj workers lived on the premises of city em< plovers, excepting the managers of thofouj branch shops belonging to the Gear Meai Company. His Honour said that, if this were tho case, ho doubted whether employers would board employees now, as they could not ex* poet to make anything out of it at 10s. per week.

Mr. Grenfell asserted that a number of hands 111 the city were boarded at the present time.

H' s Honour said that, no doubt, evidence would bo given on the point. Continuing, Mr. Grenfell stated that the employers proposed that casual work should be- paid for at the rata of 9s. per day and 10s. on Saturdays, with board, or extra pav. mtmt of Is. Gd. per day. The. Court suggested 'that the rate should be fixed at Is. 3d. per liouV, with a minimum of five hours, and the parties acquiesced. Resuming, Mr. Grenfell stated that when an employer was himself substantially engaged in conducting his business he should be classed as first shopman. In shops where the employer ranked as first shopman, and only ono worker was solely engaged in the shop, such woiker should rank as a general hand, and in similar shops, where two workers wero solely engaged in the shop, one of them should work as second shopman and the other as a general hand. In all shops where three or more were solelj engaged in the shop there should be a second shopman. If a small-goods man wei-a not solely employed at small goods he should rank as a general hand. All workers othei than those defined in Clause 1 should rani as general hands. Except on school holidays' tho employment of boy labour by eithct employers or employees should not be. allowed, and employees should not be per« mitted to have the assistance of boy labour at any other time. Nothing should, however, prevent any employer from employing Ins son or sons in his business. Numbers of boys were, Mr. Gronfell said, anxious anc filling to earn a shilling, or two on a Saturday by ; helping to deliver orders. He wai aware that there had previously been some trouble in this regard, but felt that,.if the boys were permitted to work on Saturdays, employees as well as employers would benefit. Mr. Grenfell also pointed out. that it had never been the custom in the trade to apprentice toys.

His Honour: Would it not be an advantage to tho employers if the boys were apprenticed?

Mr. Grenfcll said the difficulty was to find boys who would agree to be bound. In Wellington there were large numbers of competent n.en who had never been apprenticed. The employers suggested that each employer should have the right to employ one youth in a business. The proportion of youths to men omployed by anj employer should not exceed one youth t-o every three men or fraction thereof. For the purpose of determining the 'proportion of men to youths, in taking any new boy, the calculation should bo based upon a twothirds full-time employment of men for the previous twelve months. • In the opinion of the employers, youths should be. paid' as follow:—Under 16 years, 10s. per week; 10 to 17 years, 12s. 6d.; 17 to 18 years, 17s. 6d.; 18 to 21, 225. 6d.; and, in addition to the weekly wage, they should, at: the option of the employers, bo provided with board or pajd 7s. (d. per week. .Mr. Grenfell pointed out that the employers proposed that fifty-six hours per week—as had been the custom for many years—be adhered to. It was considered absolutely necessary' that that number of hours should" be \ worked. The employers objected to the hours o! labour as defined by the Union, as the restrictions would interfere with the working of the business. He mentioned' that the hotelkeepers and other large consumers required to bo served at an early hour in the morning. . The employers would set out a tablo of hours which would bo adhered to. For the purpose of calculating the hours of labour, each holiday should, it was held, be deemed to be a day on which sis hours' work had been done. The hours of labour in any week should cease not later than 10 p.m. on Saturday. The employers, said Mr. Grenfell, wished-the > Court to fis a date for the workers' annual picnic; and also provide that in the event of any holiday being generally observed on a day other than that on which it falls the award should'not to such . substituted holiday. In conclusion, lie remarked that the employers objected to preference being granted to Unionists, as, in many instances, the men had to handle money, and the employers were of opinion that a /mail's trustworthiness, as well as his ability to perform the -work, should also be a factor in his engagement. Evidence on behalf of the employers wa( given by Messrs. J. Stidolpli, W. Walland, A. Philps, A. Preston, and R. H. Johnson. The Court intimated that ' the ' hearing would be resumed at Napier, probably on Friday,.. November 22.