ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2761, 3 May 1916, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT

BOOTMAKERS' DISPUTE

EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT

Principal business before the Court of. Arbitration yesterday was the dispute between tho New Zealand Federated Boot Trades Association of Workers and the employers. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, awl'sitting with liim were Messrs. W. Scott : (employers' representative) and J. A.' M'Oullough (employees' representative), The case for tho union was in the hands of Mr. J. Hutcheson, while the employers were represented by Mr. J. A. li'rostick. The demands of the union were originally for a local award, but, -when the dispute was before tho Conciliation Council, it was arranged that whatever terms were agreed upon should govern tho whole of the industry throughout the Dominion. The parties wero unable to arrive at any satisfactory understanding in regard to wages, and tho dispute was, after considerable delay,-taken to tho Court. The'llllloll is asking that the minirmini rate of wages for.niales should Tbe Is. 6d. per hour,' and for females 355. per week. For .girls employed,on wax-thread ma< chines, a ; uiinimunirof £2 ss. per week is requested.' The-.Court is.. further asked to make the rates of pay retrospective, to operate as from January 1, 1915.

Mr. Hutclieson, in opening the case for the union, pointed out that the boot industry was a'very important'ollo at the present time, and that the trade in Now Zealand was doing its share to produce good footwear for the Dominion's soldiers. The industry had been gradually revolutionised in recent years by the forces of labour-saving machinery, and the union was now asking tho Court to allocate to the, workers a share of tho profits accruing from the introduction of machinery. It was also ask. Ed that the material profits, which had come to'tlio industry in - conseguenco of increases in the protective tariff, should be divided amongst the operatives as well as the--manufacturers. After touching upon previous awards of the Court, and referring to the' present high cost of living, Mr. Hutcheson said that tho union had such faith-in the. justice of its demands that it was intended to call employers and others not connected with, the union.

When the first witness, Otto Smith, factory manager of the Equity Boot Company, was called, Mr.. Hutcheson asked if the Coiirt would order tho production of balance-sheets. ■ After spmo little discussion, His Honour said that tho Court did not intend to: order the production of any balance-sheet 'at that stage, but subse> queht' develophients, might alter the question,

'The evidence then proceeded, tho other-witnesses including Charles J, Ward,' boot manufacturer and adviser to the Munitions Board; Julius Nowack manager' of the British "United Shoe Machinery Company; Arthur Rose, manager, of the Wellington' Co-opera-tive Boot Company; and several others, ; Slri.Frpstick, in opening the case'for tho: 'employers, explained that each side had-already given way ;as. much as was possiblo on technical points. It was contended .by the employers that tho industry could not bear any further advance in wages. Statistics over a period of years showed that while, on a population basis, there had been a decrease of 55 per cent, in the number of workers in the boot industry in tho Dominion, wages had increased by 41 per. cent. It could bo -proved by census figures thatjthe manufacturers had made no profits which they should be l'compelled to disgorge. Of the countries paying tho highest wages, New'Zoaland showed least profits to tho manufacturers. The Kerf Zealand bootmaker ,was the highest-paid man on' earth for the mimbor of hours worked as' far;as his industry was concerned. During recent years there had been.a steady increase in the value of importations, and manufacturers were barely holding their own. Tho industry had not expanded as might have., been expected, m pronortion io 'the population. Since 1909 there had been a reasonable increase of tho average wages, and figures could be placed before tho Court to°support this. In this'country the capital invested .represented £45"per head of the people employed in tho industry. The .manufactured goods formed a smaller proportion of, the'industry in this country than in the Australian States.' Mr. Frostick placed lengthy statistics before the Court in support of the. employers'' contention tbat'the industry could not bear the new burdens sought to be placed upon it. His Honour said tho Court intended to give' the other side an opportunity of considering ■• and criticising tho statistics. The dispute in the meantime stands adjourned.. ••.'"-