Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

MORE DISPUTES, BAKERS AND PIiUMBKRS. The sittings nf t|m Arbitration ('nurt worn resumed yesterday, Mr. .Hi-lice Sim presiding. Willi him were Messrs. V.. Scott, employers' representative, and ,1. A. M'Cullough, employees' representative. Tlio first business before Hie Court was the bakers' and pastryeooks' dispute, Messrs. Andrew Collins and Cooper appeared for the employees, Messrs. 11. F. Allen and \Y. A. Keilow for the master bakers, and Mr. AY. A. W. Grenfell for the pastrycook employers. The demands of Iho union wore for a. week' of .|R hours, instead of 51 hours as fit. present, rates of pay at .£,l 10s. per week for foremen, and .£'■) ss. for other hands, instead of ,£3 3s. for foremen, .£- 13s. for second hands, and ,£2 Bs. for third hands as at. present. It was also sought to liavo the annual holiday for tho bakers' picnic, now allowed by the employers, embodied in the award. His Honour said (ho Court proposed to do away with the classification of employees, and fix a niininurm wago only. After Mr. Collins had formally opened, Mr. Ivellow mentioned that the week of 48 hours bad already been conceded in Wellington. II o maintained that no reason had been given to justify new conditions. The employers desired to adhere to tho present award. If the men got preference then tho employers desired a preferenco against non-uicmbers of tho Masters' Vnion. Mr. Collins agreed to this. Regarding the question of classification, Mr. Kellow said that tho employers wanted a classification of foremen and second hands. Already, with overtime, foremen were drawing nearly .£1 a week, and journeymen nearly .E.I. Tlio industry could not stand a bigger tax than that. They a.sked that the wage bo. made weekly, so that !8 hours would havo to be worked before overtime was payable. Mr. Grenfell staled 'that: tho pastrycooks were at present working under an agreement arrived at by mutual consent in 1900. The employers would liko this renewed with one or two additions, viz., definite terms for the employment of. unskilled labour, and permission to employ girls in finishing pastry, packing, and so on. After evidence had been tendered tho Court reserved decision, having yet to hear evidcnco.in tlio country districts.

PLUMBERS' WORK. WHAT SHOULD IT INCLT T DK? i Another rontlpr Hint engaged the attention of the C'onrl whs the hearing of the plumbers' dispute. The evidence for both sides was brief. .Mr. W. Slaughter and Mr. W. 13. Williams appeared for. Ihe employee?, and Mr. W. A. W. Grenfcll for (he employers. A week's,work, according to t lie demands of the union, was to consist of It hours, and the rate of pay Is. 6(1. an hour all round, instead of Is. 3d. and Is. Id. an hour as at present. Overtime was asked for at tho rato of time and :i quarter for the first two hours: time and a half after that up till 10 p.m.; double time between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.; and doublo time for all holidays. There was also a request that corrugated iron roofing and cast iron drainage and water pipes . should bo included in plumbers' work. Other demands were foi the indenture system for apprentices, preference to unionists, and a, bicycle allowance when bicycles were used at tho re-(uie.-t oi' ma.-liTf. His Honour n?ked if agreements had not been arrived at in all the other centres. If so, it teemed absurd fighting the case here. Mr. Slaughter remarked that thcro was an. award in Auckland. 11 r. Jt'Culloiish-. And Dmwdin. Jh , . Slaughter said the agreement in Dunedin was nbnut two years old. His Honour: Is it any worse for that? Mr. ■ Slaiifflitor: Weil, tho Auckland award ;.? more up to date. His Honour: And you want something better than Auckland. Mr. Slaughter: Wo are asking for something more advanced. Ili? Honour: Shorter-hours and higher Evidence for the employees was given by David Parnell and other?. Mr. Gronfell indicated that the. employers desived to abide by the pretoiit award in the matter of hours of work, rales of pay. and holidays. They objected to the indenture system for boys learning the. trade. William Davis, tnastfr plumber, considered that men working on ships should receive an extra allowance. 'ns "dirt , ' money. It was practically impossible for a plumber to work without assistance in tho shape of a boy to hand up tools. 'J'ho number of assistants should not bo further restricted. Witness declared that it was ;>. point of honour with masters to make apprentices good tradesmen. To Mr. Slaughter: The present wages were, in his opinion, quite sufficient. Thomas Baliiuger, of tho firm of T. Ballinger and Co., agreed in the main with the evidence of the previous witness. "Dirt" money should be paid for work on ships only. The Wellington Gas Company, Union Steam Ship Company, and tho I'ctone Borough Council applied for exemption on the ground that they only employed gasfitters, whose work was not strictly plumbing work. Mr. Grenfell said ho had beon instructed to ask that the Wellington Meat import Company, tho Gear Meat Company, and the Wellington Hospital Beard l'e struck out as parties.

The Court referred decision, and tho sittings wero adjourned until 10.30 a.m. ou Saturday.

PULLERS' AWARD. AGREEMENT FILED. The, agreement arrived at between the Fullers' Vnion and tho employers was filed yesterday as an award o*f the Court of Arbitration, anil comes in force as from that date.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120322.2.7.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1395, 22 March 1912, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
904

COURT OF ARBITRATION. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1395, 22 March 1912, Page 3

COURT OF ARBITRATION. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1395, 22 March 1912, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert