COURT OF ARBITRATION

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2447, 28 April 1915, Page 11

COURT OF ARBITRATION

THE TALLY CLERKS

NO AWARD TO BE MADE

The Court of Arbitration sontinued its Wellington session yesterday. The Court consists of His Honour Judge Stringer, Mr. E. F. Dutliie (employers' representative), and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). The Wellington ships' tally-clerks dispute was called on, Mr. R. A. Simpson appeared in support of the application for an award, and Mr. W. Pryor appeared in. opposition to the. application. Mr. Pryor stated that he represented Wellington employer of tally-clerks. Mr. Simpson holds the office of 'secretary of the Wellington' Casual Tally-Clerks' Union. Mr. Pryor made a preliminary application to the effect that no award sliould be mado. He asked the Court to hear argument on this aspect before going into the merits of the dispute. "The position," he said, "is such t'hat f think the Court cannot possibly make an award." Giving reasons in support of his request, Sir. Pryor said that the union which Mr. Simpson represented was ooraposed of a very small minority of those who did tally-clerks' work on the wharves; that the union was one of men very intermittently employed at ■ tallying,- and .who did not look to the work to provide therewith a living; that a petition of a majority of tile recognised tally-clerks objecting to an award would. be presented to the Court; and that there was no dispute between the recognised tally-clerks and the employers. Mr. Pryor stated that he'would be able "to prove that the recognised tallyrclerks wero-utterly op-, posed to the application for an award. Fifty-two of 120 tally-clerks employed on the wharves had signed the poti-. tion mentioned.

Mr. Simpson said that the petition was taken round during working hours, and so the men found themselves faced on the one. band by the petition,- and on the other hand by their bread and butter. Therefore, the men signed the document. It was' contrary to fact to say that tbe members of the union were not really tally-clerks, and it was unfair to say that the union could not seek the protection of tho Court. The award asked for was wanted for the casuals, not for the permanent^. His Honcur: What is a casual? Mr. Simpson answered that a casual was an occasional worker. Mr. Pryor: All tally-olerks. are casuHis Honour stated, that the Court would hear evidence on the point raised by Mr. Pryor, and see what the facts were.. • Mr. Pryor then stated that the members of the union, who numberod twenty-sis, were drawn, largely from a .class who. earned as high as' £22 lis. 6d. per year, and as low as 4s. per year as tally-clerk**. That being so, the union was not drawn from the bona fide tally-clerks. -This application for an award was an attempt by those who were not recognised tallyrclerks to compel employers to give them work. Captain. Sargent, president of the Tally-Clerks' Room on the wharf, who was called by Mr. Pryor, gave evidence to the effect that tho petition was not arranged at-the instigation of £he employers, but was made entirely on the workers' own initiative. The men stoned the petition' because they objected to being compelled to join a union of people who were endeavouring to get hold of the work of those more regularly employed.' , , ~ . His Honour:' You objected to their poaohing on your preserves. t Captain Sargent added that all the regular clerks, were satisfied, and there waa no dispute letween them and the employer*. •. The looal manager of the Union Steam Ship Company (Mr. W. A, Kennedy) deposed that.he had known nothing of the petition before the sirned document was . placed on his table. Captain Sargent and'others practically protested'against the invasion of the wharf by., men who had no right to be there. The, employers -did not feel disposed to enter into an agreement with the union when their reliable employees were opposed to the application for an award. , < . . Robert William Alexander, another tally-clerk, asked the' Court not to make an award. He ■ said that no change was wanted by those carrying 'out the tallying. Mr. Pryor drew the attention of the Court to 'the fact that he had shown Mr. Simpson a list of the 120 men who had worked on the wharves in the last year, and that Mr. Simpson could only find fifteen who were members of his union. Therefore, Mr. Simpson represented only fifteen men. On the other hand fifty-two of the , seventy-three men-who were required to carry on the work on the wharves had signed the petition. Mr. Simpson did not call 'evidence. Addressing. the Court, he alleged that the men who signed the petition put in by Mr. Pryor were forced to do so. If the opponents cf the application for an award were realy in a majority, they could join the union, dominate it, and so obtain their wishes. The_ reason why they did not join the union was that they knew they had no majority. Mr. Simpson submitted that there was lio evidence-before the .Court as to why an award should not be made. During the lunchooti adjournment the Court considered the matter, and on resuming His Honour stated' that in the .proved they had come to the conclusion, that they Bhould exercise the jurisdiction given them, and refuse, to make an award. That being so, it would be merely an unnecessary waste of time to hear evidence in support of the application for an award. "It is an important principle," added His Honour, "and I will take an opportunity later of putting my reasons'in writing, so that they may be properly recorded."

SHIPWRIGHTS' DISPUTE. Tile next case taken wis the Wellington Shipwrights', dispute, in which Sir. W. G.\ Smith appeared for the employers, and Mr. E. Kennedy for the union, Mr. Marchbanks attended and asked for the' exemption of the Wellington Harbour Board from the matter on the ground that they were not engaged in the industry. The request was granted. _ The position is that the wages paid were at the rate of Is. 6d. per hour, with overtime reckoned at time-and-a-quarter for the first two hours, and time-and-a-half thereafter. The employers desired an award based on these terms. The union asked for wages at the rate of Is. 9d. per hour, time-and-a-half for the first two hours, and double time after that. During the course of the hearing Mr.. Kennedy stated that when the case was before the Conciliation Council tho employers' assessors had agreed to a preference clause, and in consideration of that the union assessors had given way in other directions. However, the employers' representative in Court was not prepared to stand by the compromise which incllided the preference clause- ' Mr. Smith explained that the reason why lie was instructed to not' agree to the preference clause when the case went to tho Court wai that the assessors who had agreed to it in the Conciliation Council had not understood the position. The Court's decision is reserved.