ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 156, 26 March 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE PULLERS' DISPUTE. : MULTIPLICITY OF AWARDS. ; AN IMPORTANT DECISION. Tho' sittings of tlio Arbitration Court at ■ .-'Wellington: were resumed yesterday morning, . Judge Sim and Messrs. S. Brown (tho employers':; representative)., taking their • seats at 10.30 o'clock.. •, I. Tlio' hearing of. the dispute■ between the' Wellington;lndustrial Union c. Pullers-and the -Wellington Meat, Export Company, Ltd.', and ( tho Gear Meat Company was taken.. • ■ Mr. .Cooper appeared on behalf of :tho' Union and llr. Pryor for, the employers. ■ .'.'Mr.' :Pryor submitted.:that in this.instance tho-Court would bo justified m deciding not to' make, any award. Tho pullers, lie might •mention, formed-only a small proportion of , the emplo}ce3 at tho works. '. In the fellmongery ''departments of the two companies' : cited there were in all 180 workers, of-whom .28 , wero pullers. The total numbor of . workers in tho employ of tlio two companies .; -was approximately, 1000.. If'an award wero . ■ given".' in; respect of' the .pullers;;'other'.'sections of-workers would 'apply • severally . for- ■ i awards. In tlitft event there would bo. no fewer than ei£ht awards m respect of ono de-' partment. If . the principlewere established and followed up. it' 'would mean that tho workers .would liave' the right' to. forhiv'lß V Unions ;andask; for'..'lß -different ..awards. ■ Such a condition of affair's would be intoler- ' ablo to t-lie. employers and would reduce the > Act to an absurdity. - The employers, lio {continued,, saw.no reason why one Union .em- : . bracing the whole of the workers could . riot r be. formed, i as had been done at L'ongburn, - Wanganui, and in IfawkeVßay. The .Long-' - bijrn,workers and iheir employers/ had an agreoment; :at Wanganui there, was; also an , agreoment; and / ;of ' the ..Hawke's. Bay Unionwould':cre long be an .-. accomplished fact... Section' 11 .of the Act provided that -tho CburtT ,might refuse.' to grant an award in.ordor\to prevent the need- •, less multiplication of awards in' any industry.,: At, tho present timo the. companies were' working under six awards, and'' he. (Mr. Pryor). presumed "tliat there was at least one of tlio Union's which the pullers might join. • . : " 'Judge Sim: What you object:to more than the granting of-an award to the pullers is that other: sections ■of Workers might- then apply, separately-for.awards? .', : YMr., ; Pryor,: who. replied'in the affirmative, - continued • that' the ; .representative:'. of ' ! tho Union had: been: informed that, the employers. would' welcome ,a Union embracing the whole of:' .the 'woHcers in the. establishments, and. >•, was {prepared, in that event, .to make liberal. . proposals. for.'-, an ' agreement • ivhich slionld. ... afterwards be -made into an award. . The : workers,', however, could, not see their way to form -a : compreheiisive Union. Every, now and.again the employers, found;that one s.ec- • -twn orV.anothe'r of j the workers wanted ,;»n , in urease of wages.' -, During tho present' Ee.-i- ---■ son tho employees in the fellmo'ngery depart,inent-: ', ; -- at.-,.. .. one.:.: of ■ the ~' cstabh'sh- .. monts:had '- made applications on '.three' . occasions for .increases; and in one instance, . fin: increaso of-25 per: cent.' increase ; was demanded.; ;Tho manager ; (s'o: he had been informed) had .received a veiled hint that in tho event, of a refusal work . would .be discoritiniied. Sucli was the position .of -affairs -that - tho,employeis^could-not afford to .pay the rates claimed: in; the demands. - On two out -, -of .the three"occasions:when 'increases were ■ demanded .they Wero 'given. Some of the managers had informed their principals that if the unrest continued they; would have to £ n e up their positions, as it was impossible under, disturbed conditions to estimate the cost 01 production, etc. If. the workers : norsis+.Arl 1 in. their .demands the only course which- tho ' • companies - could adopt would be :to close ; .- down..until the workers camo,'':to a better' : • frame of mind.

■ Judge Sim:, Why don't- the 1 companies ask • the - workers io- form>,-a union including all tnp omploj'ees ?;. All that is iiecessarj' is to - : wqrkers to imove- in - the 'matter. •• -Mr. iryor: The employers did not 'care to approach the workers. It would be an invidious - thing; to do.; Your, Honour, wo 1 went as far. as we could. V ~J ude e Sim (to Mr. Cooper): Why don't tho workcrs form a general union? 1 ;'Mr.'Coop»r,: When my turn comes, ! shall ..,.-■ ©xpiam tho wholo matter. • :

Mr. Pryor, iir conclusion, stated that the manager of y)o ,f e llnion'gery department at - v" iu°l' ? ~"'o l' .'f s -'had,''.[informed Aim thau, upon'bbiiig approached,' tho employees; at tho'works'had refused to form a nniori. .-. • ; . ■ ~ Judgo Sim: 'Why? . Pryor: Our impression is" that-thoy' . , u ?, t'hey would.'get better.'terns'.at the / pistol; point during the busy, season. •'' : ".';Mr. Cooper,, on'behalf of'thoiUnion, said 'that Mr. ; Pryor's statements "were '••• * '-'Sr of suppositions .which might' never be Mr. Pryor diad : riot; proved that, it tlio. werp acceded to, tlio "employers would bo inconvenienced in any way. Iho demands of. tho':UriioV were, he-con-tinued, -tho'briefest that 'had ever' como bsforo the Court. There; had' -been a good ?r disorganisation among the' men at , tho yrorks,; and at times, as Mr. Prybr had stated, .mild; strikes had': occurred'.' Tho ■ workers: outside the; pullers' had rcado - dc- . ..mantis,, and had received advances in wages.-' W. : P"'' ers . tkt'.tiicy: ircro the most skilled section of workers ,in the department : to jwhich .they belonged. '• AVhen the' question' -or wages -and. .conditions arose' they did nctl tako up tho attitude which, the other 'sections ot workers assumed, but proceeded in the constitutional way to form a union and apnly ■■«?!.£ 1 «??k rt ' for ,, an »* STd: K wab im P°ss.b.o for the. pullers to compel tho rest of rtVlvln'? ! UlO pullers acted: o • !? looking after their ovi-ii interests. ■ n° ? nl plpyors. would hot meet : tlera, especially v on the; important question l Pr rt;: UC %. I:e £ h «f decked to approach: tho Tho Court would-observo 1 that, in regard to hours, ■ tlid workers claimed 'iio ; restr.ct.ons which might inconvenience tho employers ~on, other section's of -'workers in any; way. < . Tno . principal ". questions' raised ,'V *««>;waEes,;-preference,'and*holidkys. Co'n- ■ tinuing Mr.. Cooper, pointed out that a'pDli- , .cation.had, been jnado,to.tho Board'of CorS settlement as to' conditions, ®tc.-, .Uf -tho general labourers' po'nnccted with . works,;,who desired;to bind all workm lncludm/j pullers, under the proposed agrcj . ment. There,were, -it was. admitted, -sbmo : Z° r h N u "! °, felll nnngery department. who' codld: Declassed as' labourers, but the puilers oould.not bo so-classed. Tho differences be.Mr. _Pryor.-: Wo admit,'t/wt. , .a Continuing, Mr. Cooper state! in at- 110 did ■not seo why tho matters in -dii.'piitc \-mild not _bo easily settled. Ho hoped tii'.l. C. : r'0 ' application' beforo it,. ! , Mr. -Pryor,: If tho Court deci'dca. to arm* an it might- make an intimation to SVi't fr it would not grant awards to_each or tho sections of workers. - Judge 01m: We understand' that the' genoral lalxjurers havo applied to tho Ccficiliation Board for an agreement which will enibraco tho rest of tho workers. ta S &. Tt ° application has already . Judgo, Sim (to Mr. Cooper): , Are tho pullers.in question• members of the Pullers' - Union P Mr. Coopc-r: Yes. ■Judge Sim: Then tlio general labourers havo n^-right,to mterfore w-ith thorn. v- ■ Mr., Pryor: 'Seeing .'that tho. pullers object: to como tinder a general ''agreement, other- ' sections- of . workers might object also. '' : : vAfter it-lio Court had deliberated for a fewminutes, Judgo-, Sim announced that it wpuld iiot be justified in refusing to hear tho Application.- Tho objection that had ( been: raißwi TTflfl not that there would bo any hflrmin making an award in tlio present- instance, bnt' -that;' hereafter different classes of worcors. might, section by section,'ask', tho Court, to-grant awards to 'thom. That was no,reason for refusing to deal with the present dispute, but tho Court wished to point out.that tho rest'of tho workers should-form' 0110 union; and apply' for aii award. If tho Court 'found; that tlio workers were coming , beforo it pitcemeal, it would 'refuso to malco. awards. ' - • _■ , The hearißg of the disjputo was then proceeded with.

~ CLAIMS OF THE UNION.Tho claims woro put in on behalf of tlio Union:— 1. All pulling shall bo paid for at piecework rates. ■ 2. -Tlio rato of wages shall bo 9d. peri dozen, except on holidays and Sundays,' when the rat-o shall bo lOcl. 'per dozen. .3. The following shall-bo deemed holidays —New Year's Day, Anniversary Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Sovereign's Birthday, Labour Day, Christmas Day, arid Boxing. Day. . 4 ; Pullors . required .to wait for a longqr. period,of time than one quarter of an hour shall bo paid for tho time so occupied in waiting, at tho rate of 2s. per'hour, timo to count from tho ; expiration of tho firstquarter of an hour. 5. Members of the 'Wellington Pullers' Union shall bo employed in preference/to non-mombers. COUNTER PROPOSALS OF THE ; - EMPLOYERS. / 7 The employers' countor proposals were as follow Employers shall' havo tho option of employing .workers at piecework rates or at rato-per hour. ; o, . Wages.—Tho rate of wages for pieceworkers shall bo not less than 7d. per dozen from January I,to March 31 in each year, Bd. per dozen from April 1 to December 31 in each year. . Workers employed by the hour shall bo. paid not. less than Is. per hour. Rates of Pay. for Boys and Youths.—Boys and; youths shall be paid at the following minimum rates :—Twcuty-ono years and over, 'full. pay; . twenty. to twenty-one years, lOd. per .hour; nineteen to .twenty years, 9d. per. hour; .. eighteen to nineteen years, Bd. per hour; seventeen to' eighteen years, 7d. per hour;, sixteen to soventeen years',' 6d. per hour; fifteen to sixteen years, sd. per hour; fourteen to fifteen years, 4d. por hour, r Payment for Holidays and Sundays.—For wprk-done on New Year's Day,', Good Friday, Christmas Day;-Boxiiig Day'; and Sundays, ' pieceworkers : shall. bo . paid Id. per dozen extra, , andi workers on wag.; ' not less thanjls.iper day extra.. Preference.—So long as the rf 'of; the Union permit : any person of gooj : "J.iracter, upon the payment of hot ox-, cocding. os., and of- subsequent contributions at. a rate not exceeding Gd. per week,; upon "a Written application of such person stating his desire to join tho, Union, without'ballot or othor election, to become and remain a member ■ thereof,: each , employer shall employ members of. tho Union in preference to nonmembers, provided that there are members of the. Union 'equally qualified ' to perforin the particular work required to bo done, and the employer shall-know such members, and shall .bo: able to obtain their services without any undue' delay. Nothing herein contained shall provent/tho continued employment of workers now-in .tho employment of any employer,: al- , though such -workers may not bo or become mombers.-oftho. Union". Under-Rato . -Workers.—Court's :usual clause. . ' Application of Award.—When the wages of any employee coming within- tho apparent scope, of this award have already been fixed bjr. an award of tlie Cijurt, or by any industrial agreement,' this: award shall 'not apply, and this award is made: subject' to tho condition that whenever any award or indus-; trial agreement is hereafter tnado ■ embracing any industry, trade, or business'in which such employees are employed, such: award or ' agreement may be mado to supersede' this award so far as. regards the wages and conditions of. such'employees. ,

THE CASE .FOR THE UNION.'.

Sir;. Cooper, in outlining the case for the Union, stated that, the counter proposals of tho'employers had occasioned tho Union considerable' surprise. The Union had been led to'-bclieve, and it 'had been agreed, that the present' rate of wages ;should ■ stand. It' seemed rather hard that a reduction of wages should be applied for by the. employers in respect, of the. pullers who had adopted' the constitutional course,-in contradistinction to other,sections of'workers, who had indulged in -strikes in order to gain their ends. '■ The rates of wages. claimed by. tho Union had been .in forcof'at;:..'botlr"works-, for . fifteen 'or sixteen years. Tho pullers had always worked at piecework rates. Tho counter proposals contained tho very clauses ' that. had been agreed to, but not the principal one on" which' 1 'the parties' liad split," that'-with'regard" to preference., Ho (Mr. Cooper) could not believe that the counter' proposals had emanated elsewhere than from Woodward Street; ho felt; sure they wero not tho opinions of. tho-omployors themselves. A few moro holidays, than were/ at present recognised were desired, also payment for time "lost whilst waiting.-

THE EMPLOYERS' REPLY

Mr. Pryor, on behalf of the employers, stated that'tho industry was an unprofitable one. Subsequent to a proposal by the: Meat Company for a. reduction of rates from 9cl! and lOd. per dozen to 7d.' and Bd., tho workers had formed a union, and olaimed tho rates which had. been .found to be too high: Following were the rates at other centres':— ; angantai, r (fl. por dozen or- Bs. per day * Longburn, 6d. and 7d.; Hawko's Bay, 5Jd. : Canterbury, od. and Gd.Auckland, Bs. per day'for 200 skins, or about 53d.' It would bo. seen, therefore, that'tho rates mentioned in tho. counter proposals wore higher-than those ruling- elsewhere in the Dominion. s

.AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT. r i evidence, had been , tendered on behalf of. both parties, tho following agreement was arrived' at: All pulling to bo dono at piecework .rates,- in : the ' case' of learners. Bates of to. bo-9d. per. dozen, except on holidays and Sundays, when' it' shall be lOd. Learners to' be employed in tho' proportion of one to five; wages, of learners -to bo: Up to twenty years, ,-105-d. P"i hour j twenty to twenty-one years Is ■ over twenty-one, piecework 'rates. Holidays' ,New iear s Day, Good Friday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day: Waiting time after expiration of, first quarter of an hour to ho paid .for at tno rate of 2s. per hour. Preference to be given in; tho terms of tho employers' proposal. '' ■ ■ 1

' RESERVED JUDGMENT. TIMBER YARDS AND SAWMILLS AWARD.

DEFINITION OF A YARDMAN. Judgment was delivered .yesterday in the caso in which tho Stewart Timber, Glass,' and Hardware. Company, Limited, were charged with having committed a breach of tho Timber Ynrds and Sawmills Award. The Court stated that tho > case .was brought to obtain a decision as to what constituted a. "yardman" within, tho meaning, of tho award. A "yardman" was defined _in Clauso 1 ; as a worker whoso duties included tho' loading, unloading, arid measuring of timber, but who was not in chario of ! tho yard, A "yard labourer" was defined employed in stacking, sorting. or.unloading.timber and in general Wf/i;. in., tho yard. /Tho sorting of timber mvoivu. a cortain amount of measuring and tire ovidence called ou behalf of the respondents proved that everv worker in n timber yarck'had to do moro or' less of' measuring. I)\ followed therefore that the measuring whicliSjvas to make any worker a yardman was ,"'»::?tliing moro than tiat whioli was 'done, i.x -.'liplo, by a yard labourer in. sorting, tiffi'i ' - and. the , Court was of opinion that a .worked as not entitled to 1)6 classed as a yardman""Bit'"** ho was. required as part of his.work to ascei*. tain , by measurements tho lengths and sizes, of certain pieces 0! timber, and to reckon up tho quantity of timber m tho same. Applying the definition to tho workers who werecalled to give cyidonco in the case, tho result was fcna u of theso ono Maddi&cn ivns tho only ono- who was entitled to lie classod as a yardman in respect of the work dono bv him' m. tho hardwood department. All tho ethers were properly treated ns yard labourers. As tho,parties had agreed, to treat tho case as one for interpretation of tho award ' tho Court would' not mako any order in the' matter. . ANOTHER CHARGE. Tho Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Company were nroceoded against for bavin" omployed a worker as a first sawyer at less than tho proscribed rato. ' Mr. Lo. Cron appeared on bolialf of the Department, and Sir. Grcnfell for the respondents. ' -

The Court recorded a breach, and ordered the respondents to pay costs. ENFORCEMENT CASES. THE PAINTERS' AWARD. Standidgo and Company wero chargcd with . having employed a worker named Gcorgo Truclgeon at less than tlio rate of wages fixed by tho award. 1 'Mr. D.. M. Findlay appeared on behalf of tho Department, and. j\lr. A. L. Hcrdman for tho respondents. Mr. Findlay informed the Court that tho question at issuo was whether Trudgeon was an apprentice. Tho respondents Would contend that Trudgeon was a properly indentured apprentico, but tho Department would submit that tho indentures wore not genuine, and that , they did not show tho relations of. tho parties. Since tho date when tho apprenticeship -was stated to havo commenced Trudgeon had worked as a journoynian for other, employers. If the articles had been entered into in 1903, they had sinco been treated as not being of any eifcct. Qn behalf of tho Union, it would bo alleged also that tho articles. wfc'ro not. entered into in 1903, but in 190?'. 110 proceeded to call evidonco. \ 'Fred.' Reyling, secretary to the Union, deposed that, in his opinion, tho articles appeared in have been recently drawn up. The worker in question had worked in 1905 as ; a' journoyman at Government House for tlio Public Works Department, and subsequently as . a journeyman for W. G. Tustin at tho D.I.C. Cross-examined, • witness stated that tho .worker in question was 23 or 24 years of ago, and, ho understood! was a married man.' . A. Watts, President of the Union; Peter :Craig, formerly foreman for W. G. Tustin; P. J. O'Neill, painter, formerly in the Public Works Department; and David Olliver, foreman,, painter for the Public Works Department, also gave evidence. Mr. Herdman, on behalf of tho respondents, contended that his clients were justi'fied in employing Trudgeon as an apprentice. It. was not a fact that the articles wero drawn up about the time ~ the Union officials called on the respondents. He might point out' that the 'officials at the time of their visit did not inquire when the indentures were propared. In January, 1906, Trudgeon received work from respondents for'three'and a. "half days as a journeyman. Owing to the fact that the firm had to reduce tho number of its hands Trudgeon, with others, was discharged. A few days later Trudgeon told respondent that he had not served the full torm of apprenticeship, and asked to be allowed to complete the .balance of his term. 1 with them. Subsequently,. owing to the illness of Mr. Standidgo, articles wore prepared by a partner, Mr. Booth. Counsel might mention that Trudgeon was paid at ia higher rato than was fixed in respcct of apprentices, but less than.the'sum prescribed in respect of journeymen. Tho only charge which could be brought "against respondents Yi;as'that tlicy had illegally "employed Trudgeon as an..apprentice. ■ ■ '. Evidence in support .was given by. Lawrence Booth, formerly, a partner in 'respondent, firm, and John C. Standidge, one of the respondents. '■' .

The Court intimated that it would take time to consider the matter. I

" COMPULSORY UNIONISM "

'; ; Luko Mounter and Arthur R'. Cattanach were, charged with having failed to bccomo members of the Painters' Union within tho •timo prescribed. Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared on behalf of the:'lnspector of Factories,-Mr. Buddie for Mounter, and Cattanach on his own behalf.

'••Mr.' Finally stated that the case was brought ..under the Painters' and Decorators' award, which was based 'oil an agreement arrived at .by tho parties. Shortly before the award was made, Mounter and Cattanach entered into an. agreement to work for 11. Martin for a certain period. After tho award camo 'into force, Mounter and Cattanach declined to become members of tho Union. Martin could not dismiss them until .tho expiration of tho period for which lie had engaged them.' Mr; Buddie contended that Mounter and Cattanach wore not bound by the award. It, .would bo unreasonable 'and contrary to justice to bring the respondents' under the award, ;■ and thus cancel their agreement with Martin; " *■•'•■■ Mr." Findlay, in reply, submitted; that tho Court'had ample jurisdiction to make the provision, in question. ■■'Respondent Cattanpch, in evidence, stated that lio was not a signwriter, ■' ljut a designer in dccorativo glass work/ Judgo Sini: What is your objection to joining 'the Union? Respondent: Ido not belong to' any of the classes "of'workers 'enumerated' in the' award. .-. Decision was reserved. ' ■ ,