Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTINGS IN WELLINGTON. Per Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Arbitration Court concluded the hearing of the wharf laborers' dispute. •I. F. Kirby, in opening the case for the I'nion Co., urged that the Union bad not made out any case for the employers fo answer. It appeared to him tlmt'the parties who had drawn up the counter proposals were >st practical men. The L'nion Co. simply asked for two amendments in the old award, one in connection with the wages in handling cargo; tlii« fc#her in respect to the Output ot work-. In regard to the former, if the increases asked for (from Is 4d and Is tid to 2s Id and 2s sd) were granted, it would mean an increase to the company "l 17 per cent, or about C 32011 per annum. The total diJlcrcnce that would be made to the company yearly would be something over £7ooo*. The granting «f a Saturday half-holiday would be a serious thing, while if the average of 200 men employed were to be paid overtime and work had to he done, it would mean another £1001) or £ISOO a, year. Discrimination in. rates for handling manure, shale, cement, and lime ivere objected to. If the men working in stream], . had to be paid from the time of leaving I the place of engagement till they returifed to the wharf it would cost an addition £975 per annum. Preference to iuayonists, among th e clauses, was objected to.

Mr. Pry or, for the inter-colonal anu foreign-going vessels, led the evidence to show there had been no general increase m the price of foodstuffs during the past five years; also that the demands' generally were unreasonable and unworkable.

Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of the Wellington Harbor Board, said the chief objection to the demands was their rigidity. It would be impossible for the Board to iCOfiMjily with the conditions asked for in the payment of wages. He contended mo good reason hud been shown in regard to preference to unionists. Consequently he opposed the principle The Court reserved its decision

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19080321.2.11.3

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 73, 21 March 1908, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
350

ARBITRATION COURT. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 73, 21 March 1908, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 73, 21 March 1908, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert