ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2147, 13 May 1914, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

IN DUNEDIN MORE ABOUT THE METAL TRADES. (Br Telcsranh.—Pfess Association ) Dimedin, May 12. A sitting of the Arbitration Court opened to-day bei'oro Mr. Justice StrinTlio recommendation of the Conciliation Council in the Manufacturing Jcwellors' dispute and Fort Clialmeris Waterside Workers' dispute—the latter with an alteration on one point—were made into awards. In the Otago Shipwrights' dispute it was pointed out that the wages provided for apprentices we're lower than in other awards dealing; with skilled trades. His Honour said that the Court would probably make reference to this in its memorandum to the award. That would cover the position and the award would bo made in accordances with the recommendation. .When the recommendation in the St. Bathaus' Sluicers'' dispute came before tlio Court it was stated that tho employers had raised objections on one or two minor points. The principal of these was double time on Sundays. The employers ashed that the Sunday rate be time and a half, Sir. Davidson (for the employers) said that double time had been the rula for 14 years. • The Court decided to take time to consider the case. In the Glaziers' dispute the employers asked that the award should not apply to shopmen or storemon on weekly wages, who also act as glaziers. The union was prepared to have these shopmen and storemen exempted on condition that such men were not engaged in glazing except on small odd joba. The Court intimated that it would consider tlio matter. Dessrted by His Witnesses. The Theatrical Employees' dispute was then called. Mr; R. Broen, who appeared for tho union, had to announce that ho had no witnesses present, and to ask for an adjournment. Mr. Breen said members of the union had been interfered with by the-employers with the result that he had nut befln able to get voluntary witnesses, and it was "necessary for him to summon member,! of the union to give evidence. "Managers in different theatres,"- continued Mr. Breen, "have used means that were altogether unfair in de.nln.ig with their staffs, and, in one case nt least, they threatened dismissal or actually did dismiss. Mr. Pryor, on behalf of the employers, opposed the application. H© said that the employees had gone to the employers, and" the latter had pressed the speaker to put members of their staffs in tho -box to sho-w that they did not want the existing relations disturbed-. Ho had, however, refused to do that, knowing- that, if lie did not do, ?o, ho would put Mr. Brecn in the position of having no case to, go on with. Mr. Breen said that, if ho were granted an adjournment, ho would prove his point. • Tho adjourned till to-morrow-afternoon. Boilermakers- and Otfwrs. ItT tho Otagcj be-ile makers' and iron ship builders' dispute, which had been referred to the Court, Mr. Pryor, for the employers, made application that it should bo a Dominion award, and that an award should not bo made for any district until tlw Auckland dispute had been heard. Tho whole- engineering industry was under review by thn Court. Tho employers also asked that the Court should not make an award iii the .Christchurch metal workers' dispute until tho Duneciin dispute was heard. They, in fact, asked tho Court ,not to givo a decision Until it had herfrd the evidence in all tho disputes throughout the Dominion. The Hon. J. E. Jenkinson, for the union, said that to hear the Auckland ease first would delay the matter for several months. Tho president of the Court said that the delay would be about three months, but that.was very little as compared with tho advantage of hearing everybody, and then making one award. The Hon. Mr. Jenkinson then addressthe Court at considerable length, contending that it was not tho Court's function to protect trade, and that the "nauseating whine of the employers of bad days" shouldnoi be allowed to deny the men their due. Mr. Pryor, who characterised the Hoii. Mr!" Jenkinson's speech as the most remarkable ever delivered in the Arbitration Court by a union representative, contended that tho position o,f tho trade was such that the employers could not afford to pay more wages. Ho enlarged on the serious ,oorrs.?o.uei:ees which would ensue if an iucreaso "wore granted, and he. called evidence in support of that. The case was proceeding when the Court ' adjourned.