THE FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 501, 30 October 1909, Page 3

THE FLAXMILLERS’ AWARD.

alleged breaches

A CONVICTION RECORDED

CONTRACT SYSTEM RE-

COGNISED

At the sitting of the Arbitration Court held at Palmerston North 011 Thursday before his Honour Mr Justice Sim and Messrs Scott (employers), and McCullough (employees) representatives, two cases arising out of the recently instituted contract system were heard.

W. J. Culver, Inspector of Awards, sued Broad and Reeve, flaxtnillers, to recover the sum of because they did, on the 14th day of April, 1909, employ as scutchers G. Gardiner and H. Lake, who were uot members of the Manawalu Flaxmills Employees Union, when G. S. Whibley aud R. Haydock, members ot the Union, were equally qualified to do the work, and were willing to do the same ; and also for because defendants did, on the 81b day of April, 1909, dismiss from their employment R. Kayeock, D. C. P. Berridge, R. C, Nicholson, and R. H. Ritter because they were entitled to the benefits of the said award.

Mr Innes appeared for defendants aud Mr Culver for the Labour Department. Both cases were heard together. George Stephen Whibley, the first witness, said he was first employed at Broad and Reeve’s mill on January 6, 1908, and was on till April 8,1909. Ihe manager (Ingram) came in on March 31st, and asked if he Would sign a contract for scutching at 22s 6d per ton. Witness said he would not do it as it was breaking the award. The manager said if be would uot do it there were others who would. Later on the manager came in and said both mills would close down on April 8, and when asked when they would start again said he did not know. O.i April 8 witness said to Ingram, the manager: “ I hear this is final.” He replied : “Yes, I’m sorry,you could not see your way clear to accept our terms.” Witness replied that as he was president of the Union he could not see his way clear to accept. On the Tuesday after Easter work was resumed at the mill. Witness was a scutcher, and knew the award rates were 28s. It was the usual thing lor the mills to close for the Easier holidays. Witness was sure that he was dismissed because be would not accept the contract conditions. Witness was working on piece work. To Mr Innes : There were two mills, the Kiwi and Kea, both close together. Witness worked at the Kiwi mill. The Kea mill closed down for a mouth during

1908. He was told that both mills were to close down this winter. Ingram told witness the market was bad, and suggested the contract system, as the mill was being run at a loss. Witness was not working as a paddocker for Aldridge, but was working as a paddocker for Oleu iu the Kea mill when Gardiner and Lake came down to work at the Kiwi mill. Witness would swear he was not working for Aldridge at any time. The Kea mill was undergoing repairs at the time the Kiwi was working after the holidays. There were a number of Kea men at the Kiwi mill then. Witness did not know if the work done at the Kiwi mill was what would ordinarily have been done at the Kea had not the mill been laid ,up for repairs. Richard Haydock, scutcher at the Kiwi mill, said he was dismissed just before last Easter, The manager, Ingram, had suggested on March 31 that witness take a scutching contract at 22s fid. Witness refused, and Ingram then said: “It you don’t take it Mr Broad has men engaged in Palmerston who will.” Witness replied: “ I suppose we’ll have to grease our swag straps.” Ingram replied: “Yes.” A few days later Ingram came in and said the mills were being closed down as they were not paying. On the the last day Ingram said to witness that he was very foolish not to take the contract as he would be a long time out of employment. To Mr Innes: On the 22nd April, when witness left, the Kiwi mill was working. He did not know the Kea mill was laid up for repairs, and that was why the Kiwi was working at that time. R, Ritter said he started work as a scutcher just alter Easter last. He was asked by Reeve if he would take a contract at 22s fid, but refused, and was then asked if he would go on at the ordinary rate for a fortnight. Witness worked for a fortnight at 28s. and was then engaged for about five months at 28s. To Mr Innes: Witness started about the last week in April, about which time Gardiner and Lake started. Witness started at the Kiwi mill aud then went on to the Kea, where the work was done altogether. Percy Robinson corroborated the previous witness’s evidence as to being offered a similar contract at 22s 6s a ton, which he refused. He worked for a few days at 28s a ton.

William James Culver, Inspector of Awards, said he visited the mills on the 26th April. Mr Broad gave him every assistance to make inquiries. The manager of the mills (Ingram) signed a statement in which he stated he offered the contracts to the

previous witnesses, as the mills could not keep going at awaul rates. He also had taken slatemeul.s from Nicholson aud the others stating that they were dismissed because they would uot take on scutching contracts. This concluded the evidence for plaintiff. Mr Innes pointed out m reference to the first charge that Lake and Gardiner were employed as contractors on condition that they were competent, but they proved to be quite incompetent. Lake had represented himself to be a Unionist ; and as to the second charge, if they were contractors then the question of the award did not come in at all. Edmund L. Broad, of the firm of Broad and Reeve, said he engaged Gardiner and Lake on about April 4 to work at the Kea mill. About the end of March their intention was to close both mills, but owing to an improvement in the washing machinery they decided to keep the Kea mill going. At the same time the stripping bauds had decided to accept the contract system. It was always usual to close one ot the mills during the winter. The Kiwi mill was closed this year, but was reopened for a couple of days after Easter while the improvements were being made to the Kea mill. There - were two separate bodies of men for the mills, Gardiner and Lake were employed on a specific contract, and were to satisfy the manager before they were taken on permanently. Lake informed witness he was a Unionist but Gardiner sa»d he was a nou-Unionist, but witness looked upon them as contractors. Aldridge was the only paddocker-coutractor at witness's mill, and Whibley was working in their paddock, so witness did uot see how he could not be working for Aldridge. There were between twenty and twenty-five men at each mill, and the Kiwi baud were all paid off before Easter. The man Baker took the place of Gardiner. To Mr Culver : Witness visited the mill on an average about eight or ten times a month. He was certain he saw Whibley working in one of his paddocks during the week after the re-starting. Gardiner aud Lake were employed on contract, but were to satisfy the manager that they were competent. They worked tor a fortnight at award rates.

His Honour: You employed these men as contractors aud then started them as workmen. If they were cantractors, how could they be workmen?

Charles Watts Ingram, manager of the mills under discussion, confirmed the evidence given as to asking the men to take contracts. Whibley was working in one of the paddocks after the mill reopened and when Gardiner and Lake came on.

To his Honour: Gardiner aud Lake started about April 15. Lake only worked tor three days’ aud Gardiner worked for about a fortnight off and on. Witness, continuing, said He had not asked the men to sign a contract, but had suggested that a contract might be entered into. After consultation his Honour said that as far as the first claim was concerned the Court thought a clear breach had been committed. Gardiner aud Lake were employed as workers under the award aud were paid the award rate. At the time they started Haydock, a member of the Union, a really better qualified workman, was ready and willing to do the work. The Court was not quite satisfied that Whibley was available, as he said he was working when Gardiner started on the 14th or 15th - In the first case a breach was established and the defendants would be fined and costs. The second claim the Court considered no offence had been established. The evidence showed that the men had knocked off for the Easter holidays, and the reason why they were uot taken on again was because defendants wished to establish the contract system and they would not work under that system. Judgment would be for defendants with costs.