ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2411, 17 March 1915, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

PENDING DISPUTES

SHOULD THE COURT PROCEED TO HEAR THEM? i THE CASE FOR THE WORKERS.. The sittings of the Arbitration Court opened in Wellington yesterday morning. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and sitting with him as assessors were Messrs. F. E. Duthie (employers' representative) and J. _ A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). When the list bad been called ovor and fixtures made, tho Court proceeded to hear the application of the WellingtonCooks' and Waiters' Union to continue the hearing of the union's dispute, which in common with others had been adjourned by the Court's decision of August 6 last. The Position of the Unions, Mr. E. J. Carey, who appeared in support of the application, stated that it had tho official endorsement of the Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' Union, of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, and of the various unions whose cases had been held over by the decision of the Court in August last. It was not an application by the union for any fresh award, but for the right to present its case. He pointed out that the Court had not ruled that the system should cease to operate, but that cases pending had merely been suspended. Since then the attitude of the employers had been to dispute all cases', and the positiou of new unions was that, while they registered and submitted to the j>ains and penalties of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, they derived no benefit from it. . In the case of the dispute now directly before the Court—that of the Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' Union —the employers had made use of the judgment of the Court to Btave off the' in-evitable-rthe six-day week. That was the only matter in dispute, and it was admitted that when the dispute was dealt with by the Court the six-day week must be conceded. In view of this attitude of the employers, the union considered itself justified in coming to the Court with the present application. Mr. Carey quoted figures to show that in Australia, during the five months following the outbreak of war, the Court and the Wages Board had dealt with 138 oases as compared with 151 cases dealt with during the five months immediately preceding the war. Prosperity of the Dominion. Reverting to the judgment of our own Court in August last, Sir. Carey pointed out that it had been based on the fear of trade possible unemployment, and disorganisation of industries. These fears had not_ been realised, but instead the prosperity of the Dominion was rather more pronounced since the outbreak of the war. Moreover he contended that the war itself was a check v ou unemployment, the unemployed worker either enlisting or stepping into the place of another worker, who had enlisted. The actual statistics showed that unemployment here had decreased since the war, while on the other side, where the Court arid the Wages Board were carrying on the hearing of disputes, unemployment had actually increased. The increase in the cost of living was all against the workers, as the money they now earned would not go as far as before the war. The unions working under awards fixed four or five years ago were at a particular disadvantage in not being able to come to the Court, inasmuch as the cost of living to the worker had increased enormously, quite apart from war prices. The Making of Saorlfioes. . It was a lop-sided position, for while the employers oould move for suspension of awards the workers could not move for fresh conditions. It might be said by the other side that _ the workers should make some sacrifices, but the answer of the workers was that before the employers asked them to make sacrifices that the employers themselves should renounce all advantages accruing to them because of the war. Prices ol meat had advanced in some cases as nvuoh as 50 per cent., but, when the Imperial Government took over supplies, producers were hot asked to be content with prices ruling before the war. Yet workers were asked to sell then - labour for less. In the case of three applications before the Court in August, the Union Company was concerned. These applications along with the others had been adjourned because trade depression and unemployment were feared, but the Union Company was not content with anything less than an advance of 100 per cent, when its boats were chartered by the Government. _ It was contended by the unions that, if sacrifices were to be made, they should be made at the order of the Legislature, and not of the Arbitration Court. It was not fair to ask workers to have their wages regulated by the law of supply and demand. They were not in a position to bargain when the employer had the power to withhold bread. If the Court the application now before it the position could be easily safeguarded by a short-dated award or by_ the Court reserving the right to review the-award. At the conclusion of Mr. Carey's argument His Honour remarked that the Court was indebted to him (Mr. Carey) for the trouble he had takon in dealing with the matter so exhaustively. On account of His Honour having to deal with a Supreme Court fixture, the hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning, when Mr. W. Pryor will lay the employers' view of the position before the Court. APPLICATIONS TO ADD PARTIES. Decision was reserved by tho Court in connection with the application to add parties to the Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' Award. Application was made to add parties to the Wholesale Merchants' Storomen's Award. The application was adjourned in respect of certain parties, but the Court decided against Irvine and Stevenson being added.

COMPENSATION CASE.

An agreement was reached in the case of Robertson (Mr. D. M. Findlay) v. Captain Eckford (Mr. M. Myers), a claim for compensation. It was stated that the agreement provided for compensation for the loss of an eye, the Court,being left to dccido the exact basis on which the claim should be based. Mr. Findlay stated that the plaintiff had been met very fairly by the defendant in tho settlement of the claim.

FIXTURES MADE.

Other cases on the list were set down for hearing, as follow: — Wednesday, March 17. —Wild v. J. J. Curtis and Co., an application to add parties to the Storemen's Union Award. Thursday, March 18. —Presling v. the Poplar Flaxmilling Co., and Harris v. tho Wellington City Corporation. Friday, March "19.—Picchi v. tho Hawko's Bay Fisheries Co.; Johnston v. Arthur and Millikin; Jansen v. the Huddart-Parkor Proprietary Co., Ltd.; Walker v. the Union Steamship Co., Ltd.and tho Inspector of Awards v. tho New Zealand Automatic Bakeries, Ltd.