TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES' AGREE. MENT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 36, 12 February 1913, Page 10

TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES' AGREE. MENT

ACTION AGAINST OIT-Y COUNCIL." Afc the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.ftr., the Weilington City Council was proceeded against by the Inspector of Awards (Mr. D. Carmody), who sought to recover the sum of £10 for an alleged breach of the Wellington tramway employees' agreement, in that : if did, on • certain days in- September, 1912, employ a fireman named Tomlinson repairing furnaces, only paying him Is 3d instead 'of Is 4d jer hour, as provided by the award. A perialty of £lO was also claimed for another alleged breach, the particulars of which are that the council did, during the months of November and December last, fail to employ a trimmer on a Sun*day morning shift. Mr. A." W. Blair appeared for the Inspector of Awards, and Mr. J. O'Shea for the City CouncilMr. Blair said the actions were, really test cases, no penalty being asked for by the prosecution. ' After The Poet went to press' Sir. Blair said the main point in the first case was whether particular ".work was or was not repairing furnaces; it was a question of the' interpretation of the agreement. Part of the work at the tramway powerhouse consisted in removing from the furnaces blocks -which had been melted by the heat. Sometimes it was a matter of au hour or two to chop one "block"' out, the process being to practically draw the • fire, so that the workman could get. inside the furnace 10 work. On othei 1 occasions the block would be taken out easily. The prosecution suggested that it was only quite recently that the couhcil had placed on the firemen the onus of doing this 1 articular work. Previously, it Was always done as, part of tho repair work, aiid additional pay was given for it. firemen had frequently, as a matter 'of their < ordinary work, . put in new firebars in place of those which had melted. It was claimed that the* . firemen who had to remove the blocks should bo paid the same rate as that, which bad been given to the repair men who formerly did the work, and those who now did it when the boilers were out of use. Clause 5, subsection (c) of the agreement''provided that fit-omen on shift, | should give all their time attending to 1 steam and water and tin stokehold machinery. Subsection (h) said that all men when employed- at cleaning, blowdown pits, or repairing furnaces should be paid Is 4d per hour. The second case was based on the clause in the agreement which stipulated that there should be one trimmer lo each shift. At the tramway powerhouse the daily Work was done in three shifts of eight hours each. There was no stoppage of [ the work at the powerhouse all the year round. From midnight on Saturday j until 4 o'clock on Sunday morning one I fireman and one trimmer were kejt on duty, but from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. one fireman but no trimmer worked. This one man had to get ready a full head of steam for the running of the trams when they started at 1 p.m. 'He had \'\o do all the firing and trimming that

might be necessary in the one shift, and that was what was objected to. -- S-jveral expert witnesses were called for the plaintiff. ' Mr. J. O'Shea, for the City Council, in opening the ca.3o for the defence, 6aid t&ab in the first claim the work mentioned was merely the replacement of part of a boiler, and was. in tho ordinary duty of a fireman. Repairs, as done by the "handy man," was paid as "dirt" money, viz., Is 4d an hour. The race before' the Court was a "turn of the screw" that the union was putting on; it saw a point and was going to sei/e it. The provision that a trimmer should be allowed on the 8 to 4 and 4 to 12 shifts was not intended to apply to Sundays at all — only on week days ; it would be au absolute waste to have a trimmer engaged on Sundays. The coal, as a matter, of fact, was backed up nn incline, and practically trimmed itself. Other objections w,ere dismissed by Mr. O'Shea as trivial. His Worship reserved his decision.