Australian Boot Dispute

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 1, 15 September 1910, Page 10

Australian Boot Dispute

Points in Dispute. Was there any " dispute " ? The question of jurisdiction. Can the Commonwealth Arbitration Court make an award inconsistent with a Wages Board determination? Judge Higgins takes evidence on the point and decides to go on and try the case on its merits. Proceedings >vero begun on September 22 in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, before Mr Justice Higgins. Thirty-nine employers were cited as parties to the dispute. Mr Beeby appeared for the Boot Trade Employees' Federation, and Mr Mitchell. K.C. (with him Mr Starke) appeared for all the Victorian, New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland manufacturers. The first six days of the hearing of the alleged dispute were devoted to the taking of evidence and counsels' addresses on the question of jurisdiction. This having been decided, evidence was called by Mr Beeby. The first witness was Mr A. Long, Secretary of the Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation, and also of the Victorian Branch. His evidence was to the effect that declarations by members of the Victorian Branch had been signed, setting out that on the formation and registration of the Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation they agreed to become members thereof, and authorised the transfer of their names from the books of the Victorian Branch to those of the Australian Federation, and admitting that they were then and were on 24th May members of the Australian Federation. The declarations were dated August, 19T)9. Mr Mitchell objected, that such declarations were not evidence, as he had no opportunity of cross-examining the men who signed them. His Honour said that, subject to Mr Mitchell's objection, he proposed to admit evidence as to that at present, though he would not say that he would act upon it. Mr Beeby said that the difficulty "would be overcome in the morning. "When the Court opened the following morning a huge army of many hundreds of artisans surged the doors, and in less time than it takes to relate had fully occupied the main gallery and overflowed into those portions of the apartment usually set aside for such privileged persons as counsel and jury. When Mr Justice Higgins entered the Court, he was amazed, at the unusual spectacle of a densely-crowded Court, and on inquiry as to the reason for the large attendance was informed that they were Mr Beeby's witnesses.— ■500 of them. When three of the witnesses had been cross-examined by Mr Mitchell and the magnitude of his task was forced upon him, he ' evidently weakened in his desire to cross-examine each and every one of the noble army of would-be evidence-givers, and a timely suggestion by the Judge that perhaps some arrangement might be made to obviate such a procedure was readily availed of. The Court was adjourned, and the following day it was announced that Mr Mitchell had capitulated and had abandoned his attempt to create a new long-distance evidence-taking record. The Court heard evidence in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. The case closed in November, after having heard about one hundred witnesses, and judgment was given by the president of the Court (Mr Justice Higgins) on November 19. The Judge stated that the dispute, or alleged dispute, was between an organisation of some 5000 boot trade employees and nearly forty employers. Everything was disputed, even the fact that there was a dispute. The question as to whether or not a dispute existed was mainly one of fact; he found that there was, and is, a dispute as to wages, which extend beyond the limits of one State. No one who had seen and heard the witnesses in the several States could fail to see that there was real, deep-seated, long-standing, persistent and general discontent on the subject of wages—not sporadic, but pervading the body of the boot employees in the four States. It was discontent such as would have broken out

in strikes and suspension of work but for the hope of relief from the Commonwealth Court.

Under Clause 3, Mr Justice Higgins continued, a minimum wage of Is 4£d an hour was claimed for adults and for those who had served five years' apprenticeship. The present minimum in New South Wales and Victoria, under the Wages Board, was Is an hour, or 48s a week; in South Australia, 45s a week, under the Wages Board ; and in Queensland 40s, under the Wages Board. It was clear that the minimum would have been fixed higher by the Wages Boards but for the dread on their part of the effects of the competition of manufacturers of other States. As to fixing the minimum wage, he could not conceive of industrial peace unless and until the employee had secured to him wages sufficient to procure the essentials of human existence. He had adopted the system of finding, in the first place, what was the least sum sufficient to satisfy " the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being living in a civilised country." This system "was novel, and he had therefore watched eagerly for any criticisms of its basic principle. But, putting aside the natural discontent of defeated parties and their partisans, he had not yet •seen or heard of any argument tending to shake the principle, or to show him what other course he could reasonably adopt. In previous cases he had found 7s per day to be the minimum for the labourer in many parts of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. He could say that 7s was a proper minimum wage for so-called unskilled labourers in Brisbane, as well as Sydney or Melbourne. The only question was how much more, if any more, should be awarded to bootmakers. These men had admittedly special skill —skill in its broadest sense. The strain of the work with the machines was intense. While they spoke of laboursaving machines, they saved no labour to the worker. For him they involved as great a waste of nerve tissue as before. He had decided to fix the minimum rate to be paid in New South Wales and Victoria at Is Id per hour for the first year, and Is IJd thereafter ; in South Australia Is per hour for the first year, Is Id per hour for the second, and Is lid thereafter; in Queensland lid per hour for the first year, Is per hour for the second year, Is Id for the third year, and Is l£d thereafter. An apprentice must be bound by indenture, and the employer must teach him one at least of the following seven functions or processes, including the working of the machinery used by the employer in connection therewith, respectively :—(a) Clicking; (b) Stuffcutting ; (c) Making of machine-sewn work; (d) Making of welted work; (c) Making of pump work ; (f) Making of pegged and riveted work; (g) Finishing {on the employer's method) or any other function or functions, process or processes, that may at any time of the indenture be approved of as a subject for apprenticeship by a board of reference to be appointed.. The minimum rate of wages to be paid to apprentices shall be: —-Fifteen years of age, 7s; from fifteen to sixteen, 9s; from sixteen to seventeen, 12s; from seventeen to eighteen, 18s; from eighteen to nineteen, 255; from nineteen to twenty, 32s 6d : from twenty to twenty and a half, 425; from twenty and a half to twenty-one, 48s. He had left the date blank at which the award was to come into operation, for he thought it was his duty to have a case for the opinion of the High Court. Having regard to the expression of opinion of the Judges in the federated sawmill case, he desired to know whether he had power to make the proposed award. He wished to learn wh ether any provision of the award was to be regarded as inconsistent with any of the Wages Board determinations, and, if so, whether it would, to the extent of the inconcistency, be invalid. The High Court met in March last, and, after hearing arguments, decided that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court had power to make the proposed award. The Commonwealth Court then decided that the award should come into operation on April 11, 1910, and remain in force for five years.

An application for prohibition was then made by the employers to the High Court of Australia, seeking to have made absolute an order nisi directed to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and the President thereof (Mr Justice Higgins) prohibiting them from proceeding further with the enforcement of the award. Mr Mitchell, K.C., and Mr Starke appeared on behalf of the prosecutors for the prohibition ; Mr Duffy, K.C., Mr M'Arthur and Mr Gregory (instructed by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor) for the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration ; Mr Arthur, Mr Holman and Mr Hall (instructed by Messrs G. S. Beeby and Moffatt) for the Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation to show cause;

Mr Blackett (instructed by the State Crown Solicitor for the State of New South Wales), to intervene ; and Messrs Irvine. K.G.. Harris, Moore and Piddington (instructed by the Victorian Crown Solicitor), for the State of Victoria, also to intervene.

The main grounds of the application were—(l) That the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904, was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia; (2) that there was in fact no dispute between the several respondents mentioned in the plaint and their respective employees; (3) that there was no dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State; (4) that the dispute, if any ; did not extend to Queensland or South Australia ; (5) that the dispute between the parties to the plaint and submitted to the Court by the plaint was a connected whole regulating industrial conditions in the boot trade generally, and the order and award was not in substance an order or award in respect of (a) the dispute (if any) between the parties to the said plaint, (b) the dispute submitted to the Court by the plaint; (6) that the provisions of the award as to payment of lads, whether apprentices and not, according to age and not according to experience, were bad ; and (7) that the provisions of the said order and award as to persons bound' under indenture of apprenticeship made before July 22, 1909, were bad. After several days' legal argument Sir S. Griffiths, Chief Justice, Mr Justice Edmund Barton, Mr Justice O'Connor and Mr Justice Isaacs delivered their judgment. This upheld the decision of Mr Justice Higgins with the exception of the clauses of the award relating to apprentices. These clauses were ruled out on the ground that they went beyond the demands made by the men. Commenting upon these proceedings, the Federal Prime Minister, Mr Fisher, said: "We cannot risk this eternal fighting of the unions to get justice in the court. The people want them to have justice. The Court should have power to give them justice without technical points upsetting things. The people want the workers to get justice according to the evidence brought before the Court: but after the verdict has been given on facts it is frequently overturned. We will ask the people by referendum whether they are in favour of this or not. Points of law do not involve or settle the question whether the case is just or unjust. What we want determined is whether the claim made to the Court is just or not. ,. On August 5 the matter was again brought before Mr Justice Higgins in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. After traversing the greater portion of the judgment of the High Court, Mr Justice Higgins said that the only was to vary the award. He had confined himself to the problem of bringing the ward into accordance with the views of the majority of the High Court as to that Court's jurisdiction, but he was glad to incorporate in the award a variation on the subjects for apprenticeship to which the parties had consented. It was eminent]v creditable to those who represented the claimant employees that without demanding any quid pro quo they had framed for his acceptance a list of svibjects more adapted to the views of the employers than that which on the evidence he thought- fit to adopt. He had been compelled to reduce the number of apprentices who might be employed in proportion to journeymen. owing to the sweeping away of the safeguards providing against the unfair use of boy-labour. As the result of the decision of the High Court he now felt that he ought to prescribe one apprentice to three journeymen. That was in several respects a very unsatisfactory substitute, but he did not see any other course open to him. From the foregoing it will be seen that the award had been binding from April to August, but the men had not received the increases of pay. A conference was therefore held, and the men agreed to forego back payments, provided the employers gave the following rates :—Victoria and New South Wales, Is l?d per hour to be r>aid from September 1 : South Australia. Is per hour from September 1. then for twelve months Is Id, afterwards Is lid ; Queensland, from September 1, then for twelve months Is, afterwards Is Thus it will be seen that the wages for boot operatives in Australia are on the average 5s per week higher than those paid in New Zealand, and. in addition, the cost of living in Australia in considerably less.