ONE BIG AWARD

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 154, 25 March 1920, Page 6

ONE BIG AWARD

FAR-REACHING APPLICATION

CARPENTERS BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT

B.v Toleeraph—Press Association,

Auckland, March W. An. important and far-reaching application ill connection with the proposal to secure one big award to cover all branches of the building trade was made to the Arbitration Court to-day. Judge : Stringer presided. The Conciliation Council has already 'taken evidence with the idea of framing an award, and an agreement has been reached on a number of important points. The question before the Court to-day was not as to the provisions of the award, but as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to make an award of tli3- nature proposed or as to whether it was advisable to do so.

The case was opened by Mr. -Bloodworth, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, who appeared on ■ behalf of all the unions concerned. He said that although the application had been filed by the Carpenters' Union, other members of otlier allied unions had joined with-tho carpenters and wished to secure ono comprehensive'award. The warrant for the application was section 21 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908. This section ■ provided for circumstances such as had arisen in tho , present instance, and the applicants were merely asking (he Court to exercise its jurisdiction under clause i of the section and make one award covering all branches of the trade. The proposed award was intended to supersede'the following nine expired awards, Auckland carpenters, Gisborne carpenters, northern districts plumbers, Auckland plasterers, Auckland electricians, Auckland and Gisborno' furniture trades, Auckland monumental masons, and Auckland builders' masons. It was also proposed that the ne\v award should supersede the Auckland and Gisborue painters' awards and the Auckland, bricklayers' award.

Mr. S. I. Clarke said the Auckland Builders', Association and other builders in Auckland, all of whom lie represented, were in favour of the proposal. He considered that on- the ground of pnblic interest the proposal' should be granted. His Honour said there was no doubt that the Act provided for related trades tn be included in one award. The Court had authority to extend the classes of trade bevond those specifieal!) mentioned in the Act, if it was satisfied that such trades were related.

Mr. S. E. Wright, who appeared on behalf of, thn master painters, plumbers, monumental .masons, electricians, and furniture manufacturers, , opposed the nward on the ground that the citation was irreiular and invalid. The Act did not make provision for one industry, to make aDDlication for an nward to cover another industry.

After deliberation the Court held that it had- jurisdiction to" mak'e nn award. Possibly'some emoloyers would apply to be struck out. and any such applications would be considered. The Court would decide in the course of the inquiry*as to which emnlovers ivere engaged in trades and' industries related to the building trades.

Mr. IVriffht applied to have all emplovers -who did not eihploy carpenters struck out. ,

His Honour said that- he could not see wiry the Carnenters' Union could not raise a dispute as to wages and conditions of work of'artisans engaged in relative trades.

Mr. Writrhf enllpd witnesses in support of- his contention that electrical workers, furniture and cabinetmakers, painters, monumental masons and plumbers should not be included in the nroposed aw<rd.

The Court announced that Jt would civs its decision on Saturday e.s'to which were related trades. The actual terms and eonditinns of the award would be considered iatcr.