Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT

HAIRDRESSERS' DISPUTE NEW AWARD SOUGHT •The Court of Arbitration, presided over by Mr. Justice S'l'inger, yesterday heard the Wellington hairtlvcssers, hairworkers, and wigniiikors' assistants' dispute. The assessors were Mr. W, Scott (for Ihe employer?) and Mr. J. M'Cullough (for the employees) . Mr. M. J. Keardon represented the union, and Mr, W. A. AW Gren£ell the employers. I A number of points in the dispute had been settled before the Conciliation Commissioner. The questions of liouts and wagc-s, however, rfeiiiiiincd unsettled. Mr. lieardon said tint the union was applying for a new awai'd to take the place of one made on March 1, 191 G. The union asked for a 48-hour week instead of the former 52-hour week. It also sought to obtain, in lieu of the former award rate of ss. to "first chair" and ,£3 to other workers, a minimum weekly wage of ■£•! for all journeymen without distinction. Mr. lieardon' contended that the demand lor a 48-hour/ week was very reasonable >\hen it was remembered tnat most unions were asking for a 44-hour week. The union asked for only .ti for 48 hours' work, and the Court had already conceded to other workers over .£1 for a 44-hour week. The cry would probably 1e raised on behalf of the employers that the trade could not afford to pay higher wages without being ruined. He hoped to be able to cunvince the Court by evidence that Ihero - was nothing in that sonten'cion. The wages at present being paid in the city ranged from £i ss. to £i 12s. 6d. In cases where commission was paid, tho wages were as high as M 15s. The hours clause ol' the demands was as follows:—"Tho hours of work shall be 48 per week, exclusive of ;neal hours. The recognised hours of work in each establishment shall be between 8 a.m. and 6 u.m, on four days of the week, and not later than 12.30 p.m. on'tho weekly halfholiday, and not later than 8 p.m. on the weekly late liighi', except cn Christmas Eve (9 p.m.) and New Year's Eve, when S p.m. shall 'ue observed." Under (he head of "holidays," the following demands were in dispute :-r"ln case any of the holidays Mentioned shall! fall on a Sunday, it shall be observed on the Monday following, and in the case of the hairdressers' picnic, as well as the other holidays, ih& usual Lalf-holiday shall be o'bserved in that week." • "One week's holiday annually on full pay shall be given to eaclv employee in each establishment after 12 jnontiis' service iu such establishment." The clauses relating to terms of apprenticeship were all agreed to except the Mowing:—"Any employer taking an appfent.ico to learn the trade shall pay such apprentice not less than the undermentioned rate of wages, nameCy: Ifor the first year, las. per 'reek; for the second year, il 2s. (id. per week; for the third year, „E1 10s. per week; for tho fourth year, .£2 per week; end for the fifth j'car, ,£2 15s. per week." Mr. Grenfell claimed that Mr. Rear- j don's statement about the actual wages , paid indicated liberal treatment of the workers b.v (heir employers. The men ; hjid not been satisfied with an o'ft'er of ■C:l 10s., iind had asked for "the extreme ,• i amount of ,£4." The trade provided em- ! ] plojinent. all the year round, with pay- j ment for holidays and liberal commis- ' sions. The employers were prepared to ' i close at G.:iO instead of' at 7, but it wns j ■ neeesary lo tho business that hairdress- [ i ing establishments should be rpen for ! i some time after the -'.'losing hours of j i other peaces. Perhaps when 5.30 p.m. clos- :) ing became general in ether shops, the j < employers in tlia li.iirtlronsinsr business | i might be prepared io concede G p.m. clos- I I ing. The employers sought lo have in- ! ] sorted in the new award a clause providing I . for deduction from wages for default of j ' work or on account of sickness. They ' I asked this merely as a protection again-t \ I malingering. If it wns well known that j 1 a worker was genuinely sick, an employer generally would not lake advantage of the clause. Having heard evidence for each side, t thi- Court reserved its decision. 'J

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190718.2.63

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 252, 18 July 1919, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
718

ARBITRATION COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 252, 18 July 1919, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 252, 18 July 1919, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert