COURT OF ARBITRATION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2641, 11 December 1915, Page 13

COURT OF ARBITRATION

TWO AWARDS. The award of the Court in the Feiler ated Cooks and Stewards' dispute has lwen filed with tho Glerk. of Awards (Mr, G. S. Clark. It embodies, without alteration, the recommendations of the .Council of Conciliation, which the parties agreec to accept. The schedule provides for th( following minimum rate 3 of pay:—Chiel stewards, JSIX per month; chief cooks. ■£11; cook-stewards (with assistants) JE11; cook-stewards (ho assistants), .£l2 assistants, iC 10s. The hours of work ii port for stewards are eight, with Is. pel hour for overtime; for cooks, twelve (lesi two hoivrs for meals), with Is.- per lioui overtime; for cook-stewards, ten, witl Is. per hour overtime. '1 he hours of worl at. sea are ten, with Is. per hour over time. For each full year of service eacl worker is entitled to ten days' holidaj on full.pay. The awartt expires on Aug ufit 1, 1917. _ ,\. The award in the Wellington Grocers dispute has also beei filed, and is.on. th< basis' of the agreement arrived at by tin Conciliation Council. The hours of worl are those provided under the Shops am Offices Act, 1908, and its amendments The minimum rates of wages for grocers assistants are:—ls-16 years, 10s. per week 16-17, 155.; 17-18, 225. 6d.; 18-19,, 30s. 19-20, 405.; 20-21, '475. Gd.; 21-22, 525. 6(1. over 22, 575. Gd. The minimum rate o' wages to be paid io driver of 22 yean of age and upwards is 575. Gd.; driven under that age to' be paid according t< the scale for assistants. The award ex pires on December. 20, 1917. AN INTERPRETATION GIVEN. . His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer pTe sided at yesterday's sitting of the Cour of Arbitration, and sitting with him ai assessors were Messrs. E. F. Duthie (em ployers' representative) and J. A. M'Cul lough (employees' representative). Tin Court heard the appeal of Gannaway anc Co., master stevedores, against a deci sion given by the Inspector of Awards under Clause 2« "of . tho Waterside Work crs* Industrial Agreement. Under this clause provision is made for tho referenc< of matters in dispute to the presidont anc secretary of the uriion, and, failing a settlement, to the Inspector of Awards, When trouble was experienced recently over tho discharging of the Physa's cargc of oase-oil, this provision was availed of. The Inspector of .Awards,. Mr. H. E Moston, ■ after hearing the parties, decided that tho unloading of the Physa's cargo rote the particular circumstances obtaining was special work, and as such should be paid for at 2s. an hour. The employers,; Messrs. Gannaway and. Co., master stevedores, paid the Tate, but appealed to the Court. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the appellants, Mr. Moston ior the Labour Departmeat, and Mr. J. G. Brace for tho union. The last-named contended that his union had nothing-to do with'the appeal, and His Honour agreed that the union could not lie deemed a party to the appeal. After hearing evidence and argument, the Court held that the worl: ■ in question was general cargo work within tho meaning of the agreement. Had there been any doubt about this in the minds of the Court, the attitude of the parties in the past woujld have been a guide, and they apparently had construed such work as general cargo work on previous occasions. HOURS 'OF CASUAL LABOURERS. . The Court later heard a special case stated in connection' with a recont incident when'the men on tho Wellington wharves refused to work after 10 o'clock at night, and held up the transhipment of butter from the Corinna to the Arawa. The question was: What were the rights of the parties in regard to 'Overtime? Was there sufficient provision for it in the agreement? , Mr. Myers again appeared for the employers, and contended that the men having accepted employment at night had no power to knock off at a momenta notice, and that concerted action was equivalent to a strike, and was in the particular instance most unreasonable. Mr. Bruce, representing the union, contended that the men being casual labourers could be dismissed by the employers at any time, and that therefore tho men had a right to cease work at any time. In the course of the argument His Honour remarked that the men had certainly acted unreasonably, but the question was; WeTe they within their legal Tights? Decision was. reserved.