LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1547, 17 September 1912, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

ARBITRATION. (Before His Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) MERCHANTS' ASSISTANTS' CASE ONE PHASE OF IT. DEMANDS OF THE STOREMEN-

Warehousemen and merchants' assistants have recently figured in some relation to trades unionism, and this now phase of industrialism advanced a little in the Arbitration Court yesterday, the proceedings not being without an element of interest. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and with him wero associated Mr. Wm. Scott (employers) and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough (employees).

Mr. R. A. Simpson appeared for the Merchants' Assistants' Union, and Mr. W.

A. W. Grenfell for tho employers. The dispute had previously gained interest on account of happenings before the Conciliation Commissioner. It had first been' raised as a dispute in which a large number trades were concerned, and the Court had ordered it to be divided into sections for'purposes of thorough hearing. When the present phase of the dispute was mentioned last week Mr. Cooper, on behalf of the' Merchants Assistants' Union, had stated that there were only ono or two points to settle, but.Mr. Simpson, who represented the Assistants' Union yesterday, was not altogether I 'of the same mind. He wished to reopen some of the points that were supposed to have been agreed to.

On account of the proceedings before the Conciliation Commissioner, the cast yesterday was narrowed down as to th« phaso of the dispute affecting storemor only. In regard to this class of merchants' assistants the demands of the union were:—A week of 44 hours; mini, mum wage of as. per week; the usual provisions for overtime, preference, holidays, . etc. Counter-proposals were raado by ths employers. The latter alleged that tl« union had agreed, to a week-of 48 hours and to being called upon to work ii. nights (or 30 nights) for 3 hours in lien of a week's holiday. The "principle of overtime" was agreed to, and the employers offered ,£2 ss. per week as rates of pay. Preference-to unionists was objected 'to. The case then proceeded on these issues, and evidence was called. The Storemen's Side of Thintjs. Richard Anderson, storemsin, employed by John Duthie and Co., Ltd., stated that he was in charge of a branch store and received &1 12s. 6d. for a week of 47J hours. There were- about seven or eight storemen in the employment of the firm. Ho (witness) was a married man and assessed his net cost of living at .£2 9s. per tfeek. He did not' consider that M ss. per week was an exorbitant demand for a storeman's wages. His Honour: What about ,€4 IOs.P (an amount that had figured ill the original demands). . . Witness: That would be better. (Laughter.) Mr. Simpson: You would be prepared to take a little less? Witness: Yes; but a man earns all ho gets. . Continuing, witness went on to say that ho thought that the trftdo was one in which tha strain was too great to work the hours in vogile at present. Evidence in support of the union's case was also given by John Kent, who stated that, ho worked 44 hours.por week for the Young Chemical Co* for £2 10s. per week; Jacob Moses, who worked 41 hours' per week for the United Distributing Co., for -£2 10s. per week; John T. Bonoss, /employed by John Duthie and Co., Ltd.; Robert Aitcheson, assistant storeman, employed by. the Empiro Manufacturing Co. • Reginald Adrian Simpson, secretary of the iinion, then went into tho box and declared that the membership of the union stood at 250.. To Mr. Grcnfell: Tho union had for some time stopped, contributions of members as it was not in need of funds. He would not agree that the hours of work had been agreed upon before the Conciliation Commissioner. He repudiated part of tho Commissioner's report ■ The union's assessors had not bern authorised to agree to anything as it had been decided to lot the case go to the Arbitration. Court.

General Honesty of Stbremeri, Mr. Grenfell: "What is your opinion of the general honesty of sroremen. Witness replied that he would not jiko fo, niako any serious reflections, but he did not think, that the present wages conduced to honesty. i Mr* Grenfell: Have you Been, actual pases of dishonesty? ■ Witness: Yes; I have. . ■ • The Ca&e for the Employers. Mr. Grenfell, in opening the case for the employers, contended that rates of pay wore practically the onljj points to settle. Ho pointed out that the .union's representative had agreed as to the ma* jority of the terms to be embodied in the award. In regard to the Might work, Which Mr. Simpson had declared was hot agreed to, lit; Grenfell maintained that tho only point to Settle was as to whether it was !)G nights, or 40 nights; . His Honour: The clause is not remarkable for its generosity.. . .. Jlr. Grenfell remarked that that clause was meant to apply to-the soft goods business, where the trade .was a seasonable one. ■ - His Honour: Ton take 120 hours out of a man, and you offer-him .48. hours in returri. Jlr. Grenfell replied that the men were "marking time" for a large part of 'the year. It was only fair that they should work overtime in the rush season. ' In the coiirseof further remarks, Jlr. Grenfell stated that sonio of tho employers whom he represented hfiped that the! Court would make no-'award at all. His Honour remarked" that .Mr. Grenfell was not consistent. In one breath he had said that it had been agreed that certain terms w.er'e t<j be enibodicd in the award, and, in the next, bi'eath, he had mentioned that some .of the. employers did not waiit /in award at all.. . After a fc\? further remarks, Jlfi Grenfell called witiieises.

Evidence for Employers..' Thomas-Bnlliiiger, of the firm of The.' mas Ballingcr and Cr>., Ltd.,. who had acted as ru-sessof before the Conciliation Council,. gave evidence, hs to how tho counter-proposals had been drawii up. Tlio men in his own stora had , never worked overtime, and they did not get regular annual holidays. If a nihil was Willi them for some years, lie would got a holiday, but they did not wish' to bo bound by an aiv;trd. The demands of tho union were exorbitant. Owing to tho mixed class of the. work, even £2 usi per week Would be 100 much for a sloi'emari. In some instances ho could not earn it. His Honour: Do you consider that £2 os. a week is a living wage for a married man? Witness: No, but lie ought to get lip higher' before lie is married. Continuing, witness went on to explain the wide range -ill the work nf storonleti in different businesses and the different .requirements of different trades in the inattei'f of hours of work, meal hours, and wages. .Already .his own firm was working under several different bouts. To Mr. Simpson-. He did, not object to the union. It did not worry him. Ho denied that anything Hint the Merchants' Assistants' Union had .agreed to before tho Conciliation Commissioner had been agreed (I) under a threat. William Ferguson, managing director of the Wellington Uns Company, denied thai, anything agreed ll|)oii ln'l'nrfa theConciliation Commissioner liinl been agreed upon becnit.se 1 of threat, ire asked that tlio Gas Company be excinplcd from the'provisions of any award luado. In reply to a question regnrding holidays, by Mr. Simpson, witness said: The Gas Company's sloremeii are already given a fortnight's annual holiday. Charles Hook, packer in the employ of E. W. Mills and Co. for the past twelve years, stated Hint his wnges were .£3 per week. He hod been asked lo present ft petition signed by 27 stofenien .out of 4B in the hardware trnd*. They did hot d«» airs an award, because thy believed that

the effect of it would be that they would loso tho goodwill of (heir employers. The petition was then read. His Honour: 1 don't think- that was framed by a storeinnn, Tho language is not a. storeinan's.

Witness intimated that in drafting tho petition they had had the assistance of other members of the firm.

To Mr. Simpson: Some of the signatures to the petition were obtained in working hours. Some of them were obtained before work, and in tho lunch hour. On one occasion, witness asked for "time off" and then obtained signatures to the petition.

To Mr. Scott: His employers did not know for what purpose he was getting off. Mr. Simpson: How long have you been with your firm? Witness: Twelve years. Mr. Simpson: And you're only getting £3 per week? Witness: Yes. Ilia Honour: What do you think he ought to get after 12 years.—£lo. Mr, Simpson did not state any definite amount, but intimated a little later that if the union could get £3 per week for its men the dispute would be closed. A number of firms asked lor exemption, and as the union was not yesterday prepared to offer any objection, the exemptions were granted.

During the course of Mr. Simpson'* reply, his Honour'remarked that the Court iroiiM have /o-hear what Mr.-Cooper Jiml to say about the agreement-' before the Conciliation Commissioner. If he had agreed, on behalf of the union, then the union would have to be bound by it. It was eventually decided' that the further hearing of the dispute should stand over until Monday morning, when Jin Cooper could be called. IRON AND BRASS MOULDERS. PHOPMLY TAID? . WorkoTS in the iron and brass moulding tra<lo throughout the, Dominion are seeking a nen' award; Owing to the diffioult procedure necessary to.obtain a. Dominion award, disputes are being taken in the different Centres, and when the Court has completed tho takirig.of Christchurch evidence (probably next month) it is likely that awards will bo made providing for universal conditions and rates of pay. The hearing of the Wellington dispute 'came on yesterday, when Mr. A. H. Philip, of Auckland, appeared for the uiiiOn, Add Mr. H. F. Allen for the employers. The union in- its demands seeks a week of 41 hours, -with payment at the rate of Is. Gd. per hour. The usual provisions aie inserted in regard to overtime, holidays, apprentices, and preference. Counter phiposals were filed by the employers, offering a minimUni wage of Is. !)d. pet 1 hour, to be paid Mine wages 'as-moulders. The week's work, it was Suggested, • should consist of 48 hours. Mr. Philip, in Opening the case for the union, said that a Dominion award was desired by tho Unions and also (he be-, lieved) by tho employers, but owing to certain circumstances they were unable to apply fof such tin award; They hoped that the Court would give them a Universal award. Conditions in the moulding shops iii the Dominion wiTe deplorable—bad lighting and impetfeet ventilation being the rule, ne stressed the dangerous nature of the wbrk. Wages were the same here as they were.2s years ago, but in all other countries there had been an increase. In Christchurch ah agreement, had prnctically been arrived at. Evidence was then called. Victor Nelson, iron-moulder, employed at Cable's foundry, deposed to receiving Is. id. per hour.' That was the rate paid by the firm. He had, been paid as much as I2s. a 'day in other parts of New Zealand and Australia. That was not too much for skilled and dangerous-work.'Alt aver the world moulders received higher rates of pay than engineers. Frank-Harris, iron-moulder at Robertsons foundry, who was'in receipt of Us. per day, did not know of any moulder at rho foundry who received as low a rate of pay as tho minimum. J. W. Hull, ifofl and brass moulder, employed by P. and D. Duncan, Christ- ' Jhurfthj said that members of the trade '■ in Christchurch would have been working : iiiider an agreement, but for the efforts ; to got a universal award. '• Evidence was also given'by'G.' Allan. 1 ;on, also employed in the trade; Mr, Allen, expressed surprise: that the' christchurch agreement had been arrived it. It whs the first he had heard' of it. The employers had come to the conclusion that a Dominion, award was desir* ible in the general interests of the trade, Ho pointed out that ventilation in the mops was- provided for by law. His opinion had been that there had been too much ventilation. The present mini' muni, he contended) was a true ono, tho employers recognising a skilled moulder [*nd paying him accordingly, As the coat Df living .had been again referred to, he would like to say that he thought the form rate of living" would lie more pliCable. Mr. Allen then referred to the countor-proposals df the employers and stated that he did not intend to call evidence. Mr.'Thomas Balliriger appeared to ask' idi' exemption for the firm of Thomas Bellinger and Co., Ltd. Tho firm had been exempted on two previous occasions, Objection to this application Was made by Mr. Alleii, and also by Mr, Philip. In reply to Mr. Allen's statement, Mr, Philip Said that, until a few months a»o tho minimum wage had bSeii the mum. Previously there had only been oUnit ft dozen men receiving hior'e than the minimum. The Court reserved decision.

COMPENSATION. INJURY TO A SAWMILL HAND. Judgment by ootiseiit was fiveh' iii tho compensation. Case of Michael O'DrisSoll, of Wellington, V. Butler Bros., Ltd 'sawm/Hors, of Hokitika. Mr. P; J, O'Regan appeared for O'Driscoll, while Mr. A; A: Stuart Meliteath appeared for Butler' Bros.

It appeared that O'Driscollj while eraployed at the defendant's sawmill in November, 1911,. was injured by a falling ti'se, and incapacitated from "work. His wages had been £3 6s. per week, arid compensation, nt the rato'of £1 13s. per week had been paid its from the date of tho accident until-'the date of. the hfaifinj. Doctors on both sides had Agreed that two years' payßidntsWoiildmcet the eaSe, aS O'Driscoll was suffering fro-hi neurasthenia, and would improve and fecoi-ef when the case-was settled. .The Coiirt Was asked to cuter judgment by consent for the suni 8f 4100 6s. 6d.-,.with costs £b ss. ' His Honour, made tin ordei 1 accordingly;

MAdtSTRATE'S COURT. (Beiore Mr. W. Q. Eiddsl'l, 8.M.) ' THE THIEF. LADIES' WEAR FlldJt S.S. KAHtT. Karl Atsert' was charged yesterday iit the Magistrate's Court with jmviiig stoleii from th* steamer liahu four dresses, valued at A's lis., belonging' to Abbott, Oram and Co. .' : Sydney Woodward, a second-hand dealer, staled that Alsen had called on him and intimated that he had a dress to soil, (ilid would solid Bis boy wit!) it; Witness had bought it from tin! -boy for ss„ and subsequently Detective linwid bad called at the shop arid claimed the dress on behalf of the police. Kume time afterwards AlsPnhnd met Willie's on the street and had remarked: "You are u nice oiio,for ptittiiijr a man away." Detective Howie deposed that Alrah had mode a statement to the effect that lie had been given.the dress by a man whom he did. not know at the wharf gates. Mr. fl. F. tl'lieary, counsel for accused, submitted that Alsen could not be convicted on the charge; that the four dresses had not been traced to him, and that he had explained his posssssidn of the uhe. ffis Worship convicted Alsen, who, he said, must ut least have been An accessory. The Court had to ituposo n penalty which wollld act as a warning to other wharf workers who might be tempted to indulge in cargo pillaging. Alsait was sentenced to two months' impiHsOhlnent. OTHER CASES. For.breache.* of prohibition order*, Isidore, Jacobus was fined .£(, and Florence M'Anally £'l. Guiseppn. de Stefrtho, as the owner of a h6rso lvflicb. bad Iwen wfimlefinp .it large, was fined 5«., with costs 13s. VA*irA nAllnirhai' lt'fjj -flhwl J»., Ht)i easts 75.. tor hsivlhs kit & horn aad a

vehicle- unattended in a public thoroughfare. George Alfred Tattle was ordered to pay 2s. per week towards the support of each of bis six children. for their having disobeyed orders of the Court, Thomas Chalmers Leslie M'Grcgor was fined £2; Martin l'ollock was sentenced to one month's imprisonment; and Charles Ernest Rigg was lined- .£2. For. insobriety, Frank Lindbloom was fined 21, William Egan £2, Christopher Truen £2, and Timothy Donovan £2. Prohibition orders wore issued against Egan and Truen. Henry Charles Roid was fined £2 for having made use of certain language on the wharves.