ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 118, 4 October 1912, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING,

A sitting of tlie Arbitration Court was held at New Plymouth yesterday morning, Tinder tlie presidency of Mr. Justice Sim. Associated with liim were Messrs Scott and McCullough, assessors.-

BOOT OPERATIVES. On behalf of the employers, Mr. Grenfell asked that five boot-repairing firms should not be added to the New Zealand Federated Boot Operatives' award. It was the intention of those employed in this branch of the industry to apply for a separate award. Mr. G. R. Whiting, who appeared for the Union, offered no objection, and the parties were accordingly exempted. Mr. H. Goodacre asked for exemption for the female workers employed by the Egmont Boot and Shoe Company, who, he stated, did not belong to the Union. In apposing the application, Mr. Whiting said that when the company was exempted on a previous occasion there were no female workers belonging to the Union. Since then, however, several girls had joined. Mr. Goodacre rejoined that there was no female operatives' union in Taranaki, so that if he were compelled to observe the preference clause he would have no female unionists to draw from. Only free labor was available. The Court reserved its decision. CARPENTERS' AND JOINERS' DISPUTE.

Mention was made of the carpenters' and joiners' dispute. Both parties were agreed upon all points excepting those relating to preference and wages in relation to indoor workers.

Application for exemption from the award was made by Mr. John Leydon, of Stratford, on the grounds that he did not employ any carpenters or joiners. His business was solely confined to cab-inet-making and upholstering. This was opposed by Mr. Banfield (the Union advocate), who said that he was instructed that Mr. Leydon employed men in repair work and office fittings. Mr. Leydon gave his assurance that he would confine himself solely to cabinet- ! making arid upholstering, and exemption ' was accordingly granted. Reverting to the points in dispute in connection with the award, Mr. Banfield , said that the Union failed to see why a 1 joiner, who was the better man of the_ two, should not receive better wages.. 1 certainly, not less,. th,an ,<a carpenter. Touching' - op.; the preference clai)se, Mr. Banfield , said.. that in all other awards in the Dominion preference had' been granted. ' Evidence was called on behalf of,tlie 'Union to show that'there should be no; ;differentiation between

Lside !hatids. :; I y-; • | I His iforioi'-ponited'diit that while ihgy-> [ would receive less' 'wages," thei- 'irftidd l jlmndiMi'a'il the a'dviihtage of -being''paid 1 |for broken: time.' This'the outside , did n<it receive. , .']

The employers' representative (Mr. iGreifell)'.saidihst;the employers were- : seeking 'tp because the iii-i .intrpfjucfiop. ; of finy improve-, jment.iri. machinery made for less and less 'skilled liibor|o)i the part of inside hands.: He trusted that the .Court would see-its. jway to' fix tfye rate at Is. 3d an hour,• ■which .meant that factory hands' would. Irec'eivfe '£2 JSs &d a week. Outside .me». : .'were not ii'early so wall, off, and he has} a. jsigned statement iby .a'Stratford'-em?, pioyer to the effect tliat' during twelve months prior to 1 the-advent of increased wages the carpenters in. his employ had averages'only '£"2 13 s Id per week. i Several witnesses were called by Mf. Grenfell ■ in'support of the contenti'oti that there waA'iv difference between oiit-i side and insi.de work, justifying a. differ.entiati'oij, in the rates of pay, in favor, of the former.. Men in this factory, it was.pointed, out,' were continuously employed, and had np lost time. According'., to a return,.put in by the manager of. large timber and joinery company two ■of its employees had ■ during the past year averaged->£'2 15s 4d per week, and j (i third . £3os ,2d: ; .'The-skill required] nowadays was, said- the manager, con*-] siderably less than was the case a mrm-' ber of years ago.. • • ' 'i The decision was reserved. ■ GENERAL LABORERS' DISPUTE.. 1

, The Court then considered the Now Plymouth general" laborers''dispute. 1 Mr. GrenfeU appeared for the employers, while the Union'was represented by Mr'. M. J, R'eardon'. At the outset the Court exempted the" Taranaki County Council and the' New Plymouth Roroiigh Council from the operations of the award. No objection was raised by the Union.

• According.t'o Mr.. Reardon, the parties \yere agreed on all points except those relating to wages, preference, strikes, and the scope of the award. The Union asked the Court to provide for these points on the same lines of the awards in Napier, Hastings and Wanganui. Evidence "was given by Charles Ford", secretary of the local Union, that all the employers in New Plymouth, with the exception of one", were now paying their men the amount (Is iy s d) per hour asked for in the award.

On behalf of the employers, Fred. Coleman. contractor, said that the firm of R. Coleman and Son only paid its laborers Is per hour. The men were in no way dissatisfied, and they bad no difficulty in getting lalior. Mr. Grenfell intimated that the employers were, agreeable, to accepting the provisions of the Gisborne award. Ho also asked for exemption for the New Plymouth Harbor Board and the New Plymouth Gas Company. So far as the wages were concerned, Mr. Reardon submitted that there was a greater similarity of conditions between New Plymouth and Napier, Hastings and 'Wanganui than between New Plymouth and Gisborne. The Court reserved its decision. PLUMBERS' DISPUTE.

Mention was made by Mr. Reardon of the agreement arrived at in the Conciliation Council between the Taranaki master plumbers and the Taranaki Plumbers' and''Tinsmiths' Union. Would it be possible, he asked, for the Court to ratify the agreement at its present sitting? His Honor regretted that owing to the amending Act of 1911, with the provisions Ikf which he was not in accord, the Court had not the requisite authority. The best he could do would be to make an award when the Court next sat at Dunedin or Christchurch or some other centre.

In answer to his Honor, Air. Orenfell stated that so far as he understood only one objection—that of the master builders—would be lodged against the proposed award. That was the clause which defined the fixing of galvanised iron roofing as plumbing work. The point of the objection was that carpenters should not be prevented from putting 011 roofing. There was no objection to plumbers doing work of the kind, providing it was also open to carpenters. His Honor said he agreed with the contentions of Mr. Grenfcll, who subsequently intimated that he did not anticipate any difficulty in connection with the matter when it was explained to the parties to the agreement.