BUILDING IN IRON.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 518, 27 May 1909, Page 6

BUILDING IN IRON.

ENGINEERS' OR BUILDERS' LABOURERS? APPLICATIONS DISMISSED. , An application was made before the Arbitration Court yesterday morning to bring engineers' labourers under tho Building Trades' Labourers iward.

Mr. F. Browne supported tho application, on behalf of the Building Trades' Labourers Union, and Mr. H. F. Allen appeared for the Employers' Association. A separate application was mado in regard to the Gear Meat Company, for whom Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell appeared.-

Mr. Allen Baid that the engineers,' for whom •he appeared, failed to see why there should bo any claim to bring engineers' labourers under tho Builders' Labourers' Award. The class of work performed by th© engineers' labourers was a specialty; it was quite different from that of the ordinary builders' labourers. Th© ironmasters wanted all men working in foundries to be provided for, if possible, under the Engineers' Award, to save any confusion. No worker, other than a tradesman or an apprentice, was sent on the roof of a building to do any iron work there. His Honour: What wages, do you pay workers who do tho work coming within tho scope of th© award. Mr. Allen: One shilling an hour, the same wages as are paid by the Canterbury metalworkers. And that is for continuous employment; th© men do not suffer through tho wot weather, as th© ordinary builders' labourers do.

.Continuing, Mr. Allen said that tho engineers wore sevorelv handicapped, owing to some builders', labourers doing riveting, and they thought it was only fair that tho two branches should bo kept separate. Tho engineers wero also handicapped, through slackness of work at the present time. It was a very difficult matter to keep the hands'employed, and there wero hundreds of skilled metal-workers walking about the streets of th© cities of the Dominion. There was not sufficient work for those men, and ho considered, that if any alteration were to bo made, it should be in. the direction of preventing the builder's labourer from doing the work of a metal-worker. For some reaf n '° T , oi ? e l< since the present Engineers' Award had been framed, engineering work had decreased in Wellington at least 40 per cent. Tho trade was in a very bad state. ~M r' -prowne stated that tho contention of tho union was that all iron work used in the construction of a building was part of tho erection of the building. They did not •wish to interfere with tho engineers or foundrymen, but they held that labourers put on in connection with the erection of iron work were builders' labourers, because they, took part in the actual construction. His Honour;. Why were these ironfounders ™ m d P artl6B *<> too original award? Mr. Browne: It was an oversight, your

His Honour: Do you suggest that there has been any change in their method of workmgsince the award was made? Mr. Browne: No; I do not suggest that. Inero are many cases at every sitting of tne Court to include parties who have been overlooked. ,

.His Honour: But you want to bring in another class of work altogether. > ' '. In reply to Mr. M'Cuflough, Mr. Browne quoted-Messrs. Trevor and Son, Campbell and Burke, J. and A. Wilson, and others as firms employing engineers'* labourers to erect iron work. ' -

His Honour: Is the Gear Company doing anything that would bring them under tho acope of the award? Mr. Browne: Yes, they have erected a large building at their Petono works. ' " '• Mr. Grenfell stated that an exemption had beengrantod by the Conciliation Board by striking the name of tho company from the list of parties. An application had been made for an interpretation of tho award, the point in quostion being whether the award extended to tho Gear Company's works at Petone. The company engaged a number of general hands who were variously employed about the works, and in the slaughter-house during the busy, season, and during slack months the company, wishing to retain their services,'put the men on the buildings. Ho would therefore apply to the Court for.an exemption in this case. If tho Court: exempted the company from the preference clause, they would be prepared to observe the union hours and wages., His Honour: Are you content to take an order in that way. Sir. Browne? .■'.-'■•• Mr. Browne: No, your Honour. If the statements of Mr. Grenfell were ooirect, I should have no objection, but men were employed on the buildings during the busy summer season. . •. - . ■ •

His Honour: My idea is that your application should bo refused altogether. It is a question whether you; will accept that order or have the application dismissed. Which would you prefer? Mr. Browne: To have the application dismissed. .

His Honour: Very well; that disposes of the Gear Company. Tho other application was also dismissed, the Court being not satisfied that it would be reasonable and proper to' bring the engineers' labourers under the award.