ENGINEERS'- DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2461, 14 May 1915, Page 9

ENGINEERS'- DISPUTE

AN EXTRAORDINARY REFERENCE.

(By Telegraph.—Press'Association.)

Dunedin, May 13. The Otago and Southland engineers' dispute came before the Arbitration Court this morning. Mr. Scott, for the employers; applied to have ail those not connected with ship engineering work struck off the list. He said that during his fifteen years' experience of the Arbitration Court this was the most extraordinary reference- he had met. The union had violated a distiuct pronouncement of the Court. It had included people dead, people not now in busjness, people who did not employ engineers, also people governed by the en-gine-drivers' award. Mr. Elston, for the union, replied that if many of the firms were not included in the award at least-one-third of their membership would be outside the pale of the award, and the membership would be reduced to a very small uumber. -

The President said the Court, had Already decided to. exclude anyone not engaged in tha industry of engineering. He said the question of l otor garage ongineers was raised m Wellington, aud the Court allowed the matter to stand over until they heard evidence in Dunedin and Auckland as to whether tliore should he a distinct award. In regard to the list Mr. Elstou would have to show that everyone was engaged in the 'industry, or they would bo struck out. Mr., Elston submitted that if the Union Company got exemption it should not be' on the present terms. The President said the Court would assume that the exemptions held until Mr. Elston could show otherwise. Mr, Elston contended the Union Company had uo responsibilities whatever as far as apprentices wore concerned.

The President: "If they are not bound, the boy ought not to enter as an apprentice." Mr. Smith said that the Union Company wa3 already paying the award rate as far as shore engineers were concerned. and tho claims would involve 2s. a day extra for the company over outside companies.

Mr. Chas. J?. Alexander, manager of the Dunedin tramways, asked for exemption on night work and "dirty work."

The President said the Court would stand by the previous decision. The proper plan would be to take the orig,.ai list of parties, and to leave tne inion to supplement that by the oviaeuce available to show that the others mentioned'ill the citation were engaged m the engineering industry. The question of including the motor industry in tho engineers' award was then considered. The employers contended that engineering work in garages went to engineering shops. The "President said that it appeared ) him that there ought to be a special award for motor mechanics.

Mr. Elston said the engineering trade had been allowed to get into a disreputable state through engineering work beine undertaken in motor garages, and not paid for at trade rates. This closed tho case as far as motor garages were concerned. Mr. J. M'Donald Stevenson, Port Chalmers, said the regulation with ro-ijard-.to overtime was very important: it might be such overtime work would have to be done away with, and this work would largely gravitate to Sydney. He objected to the increase in wages. Manufacturing had decayed, and bis firm's place had practically become a repairing shop. In tho past they had done a considerable export business to If the proposed increase ivas made over the whole works, it would mean an increase in wages of between £4000 and £3000. As Is.' a day it would mean £2100 a year, which was more than the profits of the business. Air. M. Gillies, of the firm of John M'Gregor and Co., stated that the industry would not warrant higher wages being paid. Increased wages would reduce the number of men employed. Similar evidence was given by Messrs. T. R. Burt (A. and T. Burt) J, A. Brown (Methvon and Co.), and W. R. Waters (Anderson and Co.). Decision was reserved until evidence is heard elsewhere, as a Dominion award is sought.