ARBITRATION COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 256, 8 March 1911, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

SITTING IN WELLINGTON. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Tuesday. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held to-day, Mr. Justice Sim presiding. Mr. J. McCullough {the workers' representative) was also on tile lieiicli, but Mr. W. Scott, the employers' representative, was not present. His Honor said he understood Mr. Scott would arrive to-morrow. The compensation case of Bartlett v. P. llutson and Co. was held over for hearing before the full bench. It was arranged that the cases of the Wellington Shearers' Union v. Employers, and the Wellington Wool and Grain Stores Employees' Union v. employers should be taken first thing to-morrow. The first case is not likely to take long. In the second the dispute is an original one and has not previously been argueo before the court. In the case of the Wellington Saddlers' Union v. employers, it was intimated that all points in dispute had been agreed upon except a technical one covering the piecework log. As far as the latter was concerned, it had been decided to compile a log in three months. In the meantime piecework is to be paid on the existing (or old) log. The court was asked to give the agreement arrived at the effect of an award of the court. His Honor said it would be far better if the parties could agree upon a log and have it embodied in the award. Employers in Palmerston North and Wanganui were affected. Messrs. Blanchard and Rabe, representing employers and employees respectively, eventualy said they, would endeavour to prepare a log to be submitted at the Wanganui sitting on the 24th inst. The case of Liddiard v. Iredale, claim for compensation for loss of sight (Mr. CKegan for claimant) was set down for hearing at New Plymouth on the 28th inst. YESTERDAY'S SITTING. fVellington, Last Night, ion Court continued its sittings to-day. It was reported that the dispute between the Wellington Wool and Grain Stores Employees' Union of Workers and the employers had been amicably settled before Mr. Hally, Conciliation Commissioner. WOOL-SHED HANDS. In the case of the Shearers' Union v. employers, .application was made for an award for shed hands only in the Wellington district. Mr. Laracy appeared for the union, and Mr. Pryor for the employers. The Union did not submit any evidence, it being arranged that evidence taken in Christchurcli should also be evidence in this case. The union asks for an all-round award of £2 per week for shed hands. Fred H. Labatt. (Christchurch), accountant and secretary of the New Zealand Sheep-Owners' Federation, was called hy Mr. Pryor, auJ produced returns from ISU sheds in Wul-

liiigton district. In these CBB shed, hands were employed, and of these "275 were permanent and 313 non-permanent hands, Of these 492 were "found" by employers, and 08 were not "found." The. average wages of pressers amounted to 7s 3d per day. \Yages ranged from 5s to 10s. In some caiiv |>ri-t>.;crH were paid by the day, the ivcr.'-yo being a shilling an hour. The ;ivi'. r weekly wiige of pressors was 30s fid. Fleecepickers got an average of 6s lid per day, and lleece-rollcrs "25s 4d to 31s Id per week, wuile cooka go; from 25s to 4.0s per week, and in un>! ta-e 4£.< pey week. The averag-s rate »f pay fur cooks workel '.'lit at'ils !M per week. In live of the 130 sheds, ihe han.ls were paid one shilling per hour. There were 4000 odd sheep-owners in Wellington district, and of these 4093 (or 88.82 per cent, of the total) owned flocks of 2500 and under. In New Zealand there were 21,858 owners of sheep, and of these 19,09!) owned flocks of 2500 and under.

His Honor said the union did not a6k for an award for permanent hands—only for casual employees. This concluded the Wellington evidence.

Mr. Pryor intimated that he proposed] to call further evidence at Napier s.nd SVanganui. His Honor: So far th> •■inployers have i made no proposals. Mr. Pryir: No. The problem is a very difficult one, owing to divuivify of conditions. . We arc hoping that no award will be made. His Honor said Mr. Pryor should not rely too much on such a supposition. In the employers' own interests it would be • well for them to put their views before the Court. Mr. Pryor said be 1 ad arranged for a meeting of the Association at Palmerston North on the 20th inst., when the whole matter would be gone into. Tile ease will be further heard at Napier, Palmerston North, and Wanganui. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. Henry Bartlett brought an action for compensation against P. Hutson and Co. for injury caused to his left leg while employed as a navvy by defendants. From the' date of the accident up to October 8, 11)10, claimant received £1 3s Id per week, lie then got notice from the Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation that the payment would be reduced to 17s Id, but he refused to take it. After hearing evidence the Court decided that the ease was not one in which a lump sum should be awarded at the present time. If there was a chance of plaintiff recovering, the employer should be given the benefit of that possibility. Meantime Bnrtlett should take up such light employment as might be, offered him. If it was found he did not recover, an award would have to be made on the basis of permanent injury. The order at present would be that £1 .'ls Id per week was to be paid, as from October 8 up to the period prescribed by the Act, and £5 5s costs were allowed plaintiff.