BRICKLAYING TRADE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 288, 31 August 1921, Page 9

BRICKLAYING TRADE

DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT DECISION AFTER CHRISTCHURCH HEARING > The Wellington bricklayers’ dispute was before tho Arbitration Court yesterday morning. Mr. W. A. Grenfell appeared for the employers and Mr. H. Hanton for the Bricklayers' Union. The union asked for a 40-hour five-day week. For journeymen it sought a mini! mum wage of 3s. an hour, with special rates for hot and dirty and cei lain other kinds of work. Double rates were asked for overtime and work done on holidays. The holidays demanded were blew Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Labour Day, Anzae Day, * Christmas Day, Boxing Day, “and such other day as is recognised in the different localities as a public holiday.” Some of tho minor points in dispute had been settled in Conciliation Council, but the wages, hours, overtime, anti holidays demands were among those referred to the Court for decision. Mr. Hanton said that the bricklayers wished to have whatever pronouncement the Court made applied as a Dominion Mr. Grenfell submitted that tho award made by the Court nt Auckland ifl the carpenters, bricklayers, and dispute was in effect a Dominion award. Mr. Hanton said that the Wellington union bad had no hand in the making of the Auckland award. Tho Auckland brick-, layers had gone in with the carpenters and stonemasons on their own account, and the Wellington union did not feel bound by the Auckland settlement. From subsequent remarks by Mr. Grenfell and Mr. Hanton it appeared , that both sides were prepared to accept the recommendations which had been made by a Christchurch Conciliation Council in regard to hours. Mr. Hanton said in regard to the claims "in general that the union would leave it to tho Court to decide between the Auckland award, the Wellington demands, and the Christchurch recommendations. He would not call evidence hero; any particular argument or evidence would be presented at the Christchurch sitting. 1 , In reference to the Christchurch settlement, Mr. Grenfell said that so far it was nothing but a Conciliation Council recommendation, and that when it came before the Court employers would have something to say about tho exclusion of Mr F. Cooper from a seat at the council ‘table. Addressing himself to the dispute generally, Mr. Grenfell stated that the builders in the past had endeavoured to bring about as much uniformity as possible in K bu|lding trade conditions. They hoped to he successful in obtaining uniformity on this occasion. He believled that the Court would not depart from its basic wage pronouncement. The em-ployers-'were not prepared to accept, the Christchurch recommendation on wages for t>A reason that it would involve such a departure. They .were prepared to accept the Auckland' award as settling the dispute. “We shall not make any award m this matter until we have heard the Gliristchurch dispute,” the President of the Court announced at the conclusion.