ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2198, 23 May 1908, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ DliS PETE.

The minimi sittings of the Arbitration Court were continued before Ilis Honor Mr. Justice Sim, mul Alessrs J. A. McCullougli ami S. Brown, yesterday,, when the hearing of the dispute of the Gisborne AVtitorsido Workers’ Union was continued. Mr. Way intimated that lie had discussed tlio position with the Union respecting a lurther conference, but they hail decided to leave the matter to the Court. His Honor drew Mr. Way’s attention to the compartivo statement put in by Mr. Warren. Mr. AVay replied that if one company should pay the present rate tor lambs there was no reason why the other company should want to pay half that amount. His Honor: Is there any reason why the Gisbonio Company should pay double what it is ? Mr. AVay: Ves. The rate of living has increased. Besides this, one lnul to realise the men were doing expert work, and it was different to Napier. Tlio local men would not have duffers with them, for it meant they had to do the duffers’ work. The. Gisborne Sheepfarmers’ had been satisfied to pay tlio present price for 18 months, although the Union had been non-existent. They would bo quite satisfied if the Court left matters as they were. Mr. Warren explained that the expert men were getting better wages than ordinary stevedores, and that ordinary wharf laborers handled the meat at Napier. There was another point that had not been raised yesterday, and that was the question of meals on lighters. If the Court ordered this here, as in Napier, it would be impossible, as the conditons were not the same. As it was tlio employers did supply the men with broad and tinned meat, and they took their meals on the sea-going boat. Tlio local lighters were only barges, and not like the steamers that did the lightering at Napier, where they had provision for cooking. Ashore the men were supplied with something also, and his company was prepared to continue this practice. Mr. Way, at this.stage, intimated that ho would be prepared to agree to a continuance ot the present practice. The employers hail not adduced a single reason why tlio ruling rates for tho past 18 years should be reduced.

His Honor quoted from a comparative return, and said the present rate for lambs was altogether absurd. Mr. AVay: If the Gisborne Sheepfarmers’ have been satisfied to pay the existing rate for 18 years, why should not the other fellow do so? The men do ,not earn anything abnormal, and in fact 1 can show you they make a better thing'of it on the Auckland wharf, and we are living under dearer conditions than ■ in Auckland. Mr. Cederwall explained that the Gisborne Sheepfarmers hail not been paying the rates for 18 years as Mr. VVay stated. The company only came into existence in 1902. AVlien tho rate was started on tho establishment of Nelson Bros, at Gisborne the quantity was very small, as Mr. Warren had explained. His Hotior asked why the employers had not brought it down on the cancellation of the union in 1906. Mr. AVarren explained that the employers had not taken advantage of this technicality, and in fact for the past 18 mouths they had been considering three or four sets of demands from the union. His Honor: You continued to pay tho old rate when you were not legally bound to do so. Air. Cederwall added that the rates had been under consideration all the time. They had had. a conference with the union away back in July, 1907, but without result. His Honor suggested that tho parties should have another conference, and make some arrangement. Afr. Way: Without any disrespect to tho other party, I don’t see it is possible to come to an agreement with the freezing companies. I have done my best to settle the thing. His Honor: AYo all agree that there must be some reduction in lambs, and that being so it would be better for you, to have another conference and come to some agreement on tlie whole matter. If it is without result the Court will deal 'with it.

Air. Pryor intimated that the employers would be only too pleased to hold another conference, but they saw it would be quite futile if the union delegates were tied down, to their demands as before. Mr. Brown ponted out when the Court ordered a conference it was recognised the union’s representatives had not time to consult their members, and the Court gave them power to accept a proposal. Air. Way declared ho'll ad been trusted with this case by the union and was not bound down by anythin", and if he saw anything fair to the men he would accent it. As to the employers, it was they who had been tied down, and the first they hoaicl of the reduction'in lambs was when they came into Court. His Honor replied tliat if tho Court had to deal with it he did not know what they might do with tho rate for sheep. He requested the parties to have another conference, and to report to the Registrar of the Court. BREACH OF AAA r ARD.

W H. Lewis, tailor, Te Ivaraka, was charged with a breach of the Tailors’ Award in employing female _asaisiants when he was not employing jobrncyjv omen. appcare<l for respondent Mr. Gohns stated that the award laid down that two journeywomen must bo employed before an assistant could be employed. Mr. Blair admitted the facts, but said that respondent employed a journeyman and his wife, who was a tailoress. Respondent had endeavored to '-'et additional journeywomen, . offering high wages, but had been •unable to do so. in reply to His Honor respondent said ho commenced business at Te Ivaraka in July, 1906. Sworn, respondent, stated he opened up at To ivaraka on July 20, ±9OO. To Mr. Gohns: He was employed in Palmerston. North before coming to Gisborne. He did not remember telling Mr. Gohns when lie started m business. Mr. Gohns said he could not prove that respondent did not commence in business on the day stated, and asked leave to withdraw the information, which was granted. The Court then adjourned to await a report of the result of the conferncee’ between tho union and the employers in the Waterside Workers’ dispute.