COMPOSITORS' WAGES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 50, 22 November 1919, Page 3

COMPOSITORS' WAGES

MARCH AGREEMENT REPUDIATED

APPLICATION MADE TO THE COURT

An application made by the Now Zealand Federated Typographical Association for a Dominion increase in wages was the subject of some controversy in tho Arbitration Court yesterday morning. Tho application • has been filed under tho provisions of the War Legislation and Statuto Law Amendment Act, 1918, and tho special grounds upon which it is based are stated to bo "the unsatisfactory nature of the agreement dated March 7, 1919; increased cost of living; prosperous condition of the industry; improved conditions granted to typographers in other Dominions and countries—notably Great Britain, South Africa and America—contrasted with the small advance in New Zealand; increases in wages and improved conditions granted to other skilled and unskilled occupations in New Zealand, and all other relevant considerations." The federation invites the_ Court to make three amendments which it describes in the following terms: "(1) That the war bonus provided by the award of March 14, 1917, and subsequently amended bv an order of the Arbitration Court dated March 7, 1919, increasing tho said bonus by 7s. 6d. per week, shall be further amended by tho addition of .£2 2s. Cd. per week to tho amounts already stated, with proportionate increase to tho day or hourly wages provided for under the award and amending order; (2) to add a new clause to the award, as subsequently amended, repealing all overtime charges provided therein, and substituting throughout 'rato and a half, calculated on tho combined wages and bonus'; (3) adding a further new clause to the award providing for the payment of a bonus of 30 per cent, on tho earnings of all piece-workers." When • the caso was called, Mr. F. Pirani (representing the employers) alleged that the federation had not given the employers fair notice of tho application. .Ho also contended that the case should bo heard not in Wellington only, as the union proposed, but in the four main centres. Coming so soon after the agreement of March last, the application, he said, seemed an extraordinary one. It had taken tho employers by surprise. Mr. A. Robbie (representing tho applicant federation): "The agreement of March last was a very unsatisfactory one from tho point of view of tho union.

It was so unsatisfactory that tho officials who negotiated tlie agreement were put out of oHice." There was considerable disaffection among tho workers, Mr. Robbio proceeded, and they woro very anxious .to see the .matter settled. Tho wages of New Zealand compositors had sunk so low by comparison with tho wages paid 'other compositors and other tradesmen, that Japanese compositors were now receiving about 30 per cent, moro than the New Zealand workers. Mr. Pirani Baid that if tho Court proposed to dccido tho case merely upon the increased cost of living 6ince March last, there oould bo no room for argument thon. Mr. Robbie: The caso is based on tho provision of tho Act not commonly urged before tho Court, viz., "al lother relevant considerations." •His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer: It is rather" extraordinary that you should make an agreement in March, then allegs as one of t.ho grounds of this application the unsatisfactory nature of that agreement. Mr. Robbie submitted that tho union officials who entered into the agreement had no authority. The union, however, had always adhered to its contracts, and though the contract had been mado without its sanction, tho union thought it would be a breach of faith to go back on it. His Honour: You are going back on it now. Mr. Robbie: Wo have the right to move tho Court at any timo and from time to timo for an amendment of the award. • ;: His Honour asked whether it would not- be far better •to leave tho matter until the parties came to make a new award. Certainly tho cost of living and "other relevant considerations" were provided as grounds on which unions might apply for amendments, but it appeared as though the "relevant considerations" to be urged in tho present case would embrace consideration of tho whole dispute. Such a thing had never been intended. In all parts of the world, submitted Mr. Robbie,' t.ho trade had had its wages advanced.in proportion to the increnso in the cost of living. His Honour said that if decision was to bo based on the increased coat of living, tho increase would have to bo computed from March last. Mr. Robbie: "But we did rot recognise those who mado the agreement in March. We throw them all out of office. I don't say it was made in any spirit of betrayal, but through pure weakness." If tho employers, he added, know the feeling that was abroad among the workers, they would bo desirous of reaching a settlement. A little later, Mr. Robbie expressed the willingness of the federation to meet the emnloycrs in conference on any of the points raised by tho application. Mr. Pirani said that he had been a# cused of having a malign influence to secure nn unfair settlement in March. ... Unfortunately, when there was anv trouble in the trade, it came from Wellington. At the last conference, representatives of the Wellington association had apneared against him, and they had agreed unanimously to tho settlement Mr. Chapman, who was "fired out" of office becanso of tho n?reement and was put back again immediately afterwards, moved a vote of thanks to him (Mr. Pirani) for the consideration he'had shown and for the settlement he had helped to arrive at. . . . Ho did not think the emnlovers or (lie employees outside of Wellington should submit to dictation hv a section in Wellington 'comprising many persons who were employed in the Government Printing Office and had nothing to do with , awards. Mr. Robbie Tejoined that employees in the Government Printing Offiro took l'ftle active part in union matters. Ho mentioned that the union preferred the matter to 1» settled under tho provision in the 1011 Act for a hearing in ono place. Mr. Pirani: We contend that tho caso must bo heard in the four centres, not so much to get the employers' opinion as to prove that the unionists throughout New Zealand are not in agreement with Wellington in regard to these demands. His Honour held that reasonable notice had not been given to the employers, and he therefore postponed the hearing of the application to 'Friday, November 28. at 11' a.m. Having heard evidence on that date, the Court, ho said, would consider whether it was necessary or desirable to hear evidence in other centres. Tt would be a good tiling if tho parties could arrange a settlement by means of .a confcrence, but tho Court was not disposed to order a conference.