ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 839, 13 March 1903, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

DISPUTE IN BUILDING TRADE

AWARD TO BE DELIVERED

TO-MORROW.

A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held .yesterday, before His Honor Mr Justice Coopor and Messrs Slater and Brown, to hear the disputo in the local building . trado. Those present included Messrs Dewing and Cederwall, representing Messrs Nolson Bros.’ freezing works and tbo Gisborne Shoopfarmors' freezing works respectively, and Messrs Stafford, Skoet, and Mackrell, representing the Builders’ Association. Mr A. Bossor, together with Messrs Harries (president) and Catton (secretary), appeared for the local branch of the Union. Mr Eosser, in opening, said that members of the union on their arrival in Gisborne found thero were no set hours of work or pay, and therefore a branch was formod in Gisborne, but owing to it not being registered in time the case was brought by the Auckland branch ; although it was the demands of the Gisborne workmen. At the conference of master builders and workmen no settlement was arrived at, and the case had to be proceeded with. The union wore asking for Is 4d an hour for journeymen in Gisborne, although only Is 8d was being paid in Auckland. The peculiarities of Gisborne were many, the cost of living, tho prices of tools, etc,, demanding this increase. Mr. Eosser thought suburban work should bo considered to begin two miles beyond the Jubilee Fireball. Ho thought the travelling question would not present any trouble, as ho understood the arrangement already obtained. He said he was glad to say that apprentices wore being recognised in Gisborne. In dealing with the preference clause, Mr Eosser said

it was the crux of the whole question, and one which employers obstinately opposed. Ho thon made reference to the good work

the said clause had done in the Auckland district, and remarked that when it would be granted here it would do equally as well.

Mr Eosser, in reply to Mr Brown, said that there were 20 members in tho local branch of tho union.

Archibald Kirk, a carpenter in the employ of Mossrs Mackrell and Collpy, deposed ho was getting 10s per day (Is 8d per hour), and worked 47 hours a week, being paid for 48. Ho had 10 years' experience, and considered the demands of the Union very fair. Country work was unsatisfactory, and required increased wages. He had travelled 75 miles to work, and that was done in two days. He considered the Union should have preference.

Mr Stafford : It was only fair that the Union should havo preference if it helped to keep the wages up and things going. By Mr Mackrell: He had been working for three years and throe months with Mackrell and Colley, and had not told them that he was dissatisfied.

Charles Cation, junr., had had 27 years’ experience in Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne, and had received 10s per day and worked 47 hours per week, being paid for 48. He had been secretary to the Union since its foundation and had a thorough knowledge of its working. There were 20 members in the local branch. He had been in Gis-

borne nearly two years. Ho considered tliat there were only about 40 competent carpenters in the district. Ho thought there were about 80 carpenters in the dis-

trict. He was a married man with a family of eight childiqn, and was unable to put any of his £3 per week in the Savings Bank, as living was inuoh dearer here than in Hawke’s Bay. It cost him £2 18s per week to live, and when he had

any lost time somebody went short. He paid 10s per week for rout, and this was under exceptional circumstances, as the house was old and a long way out of town. He considered tools were much dearer here tbuu in Hawke’s Bay ; for example

he stated that his father bought a Mattheson plane for 6s 6d here, and that

it could be bought in Hawke’s Bay for 5s 6d. Mr Rosser: In Auckland 4s 6d. Witness, continuing, said that paymeut was made by cheque, and often proved unsatisfactory. He was paid fortnightly. Tho President pointed out that cash could be demanded, as it was provided for by'statute. The Act was almost a deadletter, but the workman could easily redress his grievance. Mr Catton continuing, said that no union man in the district had been un-

fairly treated. Hia reason for why the union should have preference was the cost of initiation, and that a subscription had to be paid to the union, and in consideration of the risk he should be given the preference. ivfr Stafford : Witness’s definition of a competent man was one who could take a plan from his employer and carry it out. He had worked with seven or eight union men, and of these six would be competent men. The union allowed incompetent men to join, but while they were bound by the incompetent clause they had to do so. Edward Alfred Church stated he was working at the Gisborne Freezing Works, whero three other carpenters were employed along with himself. He received 10s per day. He had 20 to 25 years’ experience, and had a family of seven children, and found that living and tools was dearer in Gisborne than in Hawke’s Bay.

When in the oountry he never received overtime. He was in favor of ap-

prentices being legally identured. . He found fuel vory dear. He was paid in cash by the Freezing Works, which ho decidedly preferred. He supported the preference clause, because he thought it right and proper, as they had to pay for initia-

tion and for joining the union. It was possible for an unscrupulous man to work against a union man, although he had never had unfair treatment.

Mr Stafford : He left Clayton Bros, to go to the works because he had a job there wet or dry.

Witness continuing, said he spoke to Mr Clayton about it, and the latter told him that he could not promise him a permanent job, and he understood that on going to the works he had a permanent job for six months. His Honor : I think you were very wise. Edward Stillburn said he worked for Clayton Bros., and had an intercolonial experience. He received Is 3d per hour. He occasionally acted as foreman, and in view of the responsibilities was justified in gotting a higher wago. He was only paid one way when travelling to work. He preferred being paid in cash. The preference clause upheld the right of Union men.

Mr Stafford : He did cot know of in stances whore men, who had not boon ap prenticed, turned out good tradesmen. Mr Stafford stated that employers were agreed on the point that boys should be apprenticed. Alfred George Joslin said he was working for Mr 0. Wood, and was getting 9s per day, but usually got 10s. When in Auckland he received the ruling wage. Charles Boland said that he was a joiner, and worked for Messrs Mackrell and Colley, being paid ten shillings per day. He considered the demands very fair. He thought that there were forty competent men in the trade in Gisborne, but the total number employed might be 90. He believed in the preference clause. Mr Stafford : Why should preference he given to you ? lyitness : Some of my money went towards getting this award, and I ought to get paid. ' Mr Stafford : You are paying for the benefit of both ? Witness : Yes. Mr Stafford: Supposing fifteen nonunion men have beon working for a builder for three years and a union man for 12 months, which should have the preference'? Witness : If I were a better man than fhey I should have the preference, or if things were equal. Alfred Hansen, carpenter, stated he had worked for Messrs Haisman and McConnochie and Gillivray. He had got 10s a day in Auckland and from Mr Haisman. After that he worked for McConnochie and Gillivray for three weeks, and left them when he found that their ruling rate was only 9s a day. He was paid 10s for the time he worked. Haisman paid cash, and the other firm by cheque. By Mr Stafford : He had been five years at the trade. McConnochie and Gillivray had stated they would not pay any man in Gisborne 10s a day. He was not the only man that had left.

Mr Stafford : Where are you working now ?

Witness: lam having a week’s holiday. By Mr Rosser : My father is a buildor and contractor in Auckland, and I have had a large experience with him. Frank Sarten, carpenter, stated that he was working for Mackrell and Colley at 9s a day, but his usual wages were 10s. He could not get more than 9s from his employers. He had been 25 years at the trade. Edmund James Ancell, carpenter, employed by Clayton Bros., had w rked in various parts of the world —Australia, on the Continent, and in the Transvaal. In the latter place ho was paid £1 per day, where the ruling wage was £5 per week. He was a single man. He was getting 9s a day, and his board cost £1 a week, without washing. By Mr Stafford: Ho considered that preference should be given to unionists when fresh hands were taken on, but did not think he should be kept on in preference to one engaged before him. James Edmund Harries, carpenter and joiner, had over 40 years’ experience. He was employod by W. O. Skeet at 9s, but had received 10s arid 12s. He had worked

for other firms and at other places, but chiefly in Gisborne. He thought the preference clause should be given, and he thought the demands, if granted, would make conditions better for employers and employed. Tho preference clause was

just, as the unionists bore tho brunt of the battle in obtaining those better conditions, and should receive the reward. It ensured employers getting better tradesmen, and equalised competition, as it would prevent one builder employing boys and competing with this cheap labor against a man who was employing tradesmen. Additional paymeut should bo made for country work.

Mr Stafford: Will the fact of a man coming into tho union make him an efficient tradesman ?

Witness : No, you know that as well as I do.

r To His Honor : Ho considered the minimum wago should be 10s per day. He considered that Is 3d per hour was a just wage. He did not want to see three or four classes of men. Mr Eosser: Are there not some con-

tractors to whose tender mercies you would bo sorry to trust in tho matter of a mutual agreement ?

Witness : Yes. Mr Rosser : How would you deal with hem ? Witness : I would not work for them.

Mr Rosser put in a list of the prices charged in Gisborne for meat. Mr Stafford said that the prices were correct, and about the same as ruled in Auckland. This closed the case for the union..

When the Court resumed at 2.15 the case for the employers was presented.

Mr Stafford asked the Bench to excuse any shortcomings in regard to the way in which the case was conducted, as the Court experience was quite new to himself and others. Tho employers did not propose to call evidence from amongst the ni6n, but they would deal with the various clauses in the demand. Thero were many clauses that were not disputed, whilst others they would be satisfied with amending. They were prepared to pay the men for the time lost in going to work in the country. That was one way only.

This practice had existed in Gisborne for

many years. In regard to time the employers did not object to the number of hours but to the time of employment, as in the winter it would be impossible to do the work.

Mr W. O. Skeet, called to give evidence in regard to the clause relating to the hours of work, said that he did not see how u man conld work up to five o’clock, indoors in the winter. He would like to see the men work ordinarily from 8 to 12, and 1 to 5, and on Saturdays from 8 to 12, and 1 to 4 ; that was 47 hours, and they paid for 48. In the winter time they could not work later than a quatter past four. It was the custom to work on

Saturday afternoon in the trade in Gisborne. At present some of the men did not work on Saturday afternoons, but this was quite a receut innovation in Gisborne. Witness had no objection as regards the overtime clause for work in town. He

thought 4 miles should be the limit iustead

of two in regard to the distance men

should go to work. It had been his custom to pay men for the time lost going to country jobs, but generally one way only. He had paid them sometimes for both going and coming. In the employment of unionists and non-unionists he did not think any difference should be shown. Such matters should be left to the will of the contractors. He did not think it right that builders should be compelled to give preference to unionists. By His Honor: He considered the rate of wages should be fixed at Is Sd per hour. By Mr Rosser: He had no experience in regard to the hours worked in Napier. He considered that it was difficult to carrv out olause 18 of the demand in regard to sanitary provisions. The price of the 21b loaf was since last Monday, but before that it was fourpence. John Colley, builder and contractor, gave corroborative evidence in regard to the hours of labor. His Honor suggested that the week’s work should be forty-seven hours, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., with provision for Saturday afternoon half-holiday.

Mr Stafford said that some of the employers only wanted 44 hours per week. Discussion took place in regard to the Saturday half-holiday, His Honor remarking that it appeared from the evidence that most of the men had been taking the

Saturday half-holiday. Mr Colley, continuing, said that he

thought it should be left optional with the employers and men $s to what hours they should work. He thought the minimum wage should be Is l£d, and this would not prevent the best men being paid 10s to 12s per day. He was paying some of his men 10s per day at present. The minimum wage should be 9s. He did not think that payment with cash was alto-

gether satisfactory, as the men were scattered all over the country. It was not convenient to keep a lot of money in cash. It was his firm’s practice to pay by cheque.

Mr Brown said that it was inconvenient So run all over the town with a oheque

It was an obligation that the men should not be put under, in some cases the workmen might be subjected to the indignity of being told by tradesmen that they would not cash the cheques presented. Witness said that he was quite willing that the men should be paid in oash. Mr Brown ; An Aot of Parliament provides that they shall be paid in oash. Witness : We are quite willing to pay in cash if the men desire it. We are also willing to employ unionists as well as nonunionists. 1 like to have a voice in the selection of the men. Ido not believe in the preference clause. By Mr Rosser: The fact of the men coming in from the country on Saturday evenings and Sundays for payment did not show a want of system. He was strongly in favor of a half-holiday. His men worked 44 hours a week, and were paid for that. Mr Rosser: If nine or ten men say that they have had trouble in cashing certain employers’ cheques would you deny it ? Witness: I can only say that it is quite foreign to me. I never heard of a man having trouble to cash any employer’s

cheque. Mr Cedorwall, on behalf of the Gisborne Freezing Works, asked to have that Company exempted from the award.

His Honor : From the evidence it appears that the company are employing men to erect buildings. There is no reason why they should be excluded from the award. Mr Brown : If what the witnesses state is correct, you are competing with the builders.

Mr Cederwall: We agree to fall in with the conditions enforced on other companies throughout the colony, except in regard to some work upon which we should employ yearly men. We keep two men for ordinary repairing work. In regard to all building work we are willing to fall into line. We have two men, and one is paid £2 14s per week. Continued on page 4.