ARBITRATION COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8473, 26 June 1907, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

IN MASTERTON. sitting of the Arbitration Court commenced in Masterton, yesterday morning, in the Courthouse. The Court comprised His Honor Mr Justice Sim (President), and Messrs S. Brown (employers' representative) and E. Slater (employees' representative). Peter Blachford, baker, of Featherston, was charged with having •employed Alfred Mason at a less wage than the minimum stipulated by the award. Defendant, who was represented by Mr B. J. Dolan, pleaded guilty. Inspector Hood appeared for the prosecution. Mr the defendant was terms of the award under which he worked. Mason was foreman in the defendant's establishment, and was paid £2 10s per week. Jto addition he was allowed certain amounted to about 10$ per week extra. The award piovided that a foreman should be paid not less than £3 per week-, but the word foreman implied that there were other employees in the establishment whereas there were none. The Court, after considering the tase, imposed a fine of .£1 without costs* Alfred Mason, who was also defended by Mr B. J. Dolan, pleaded guilty to a charge of having accepted a less wage from P. Blachford than that stipulated by the award. A fine of £1 was imposed without costs., Harry Townsley,-< tailor, late of Pahiatua, was charged with having employed Florence Bauckham at a less wage than that stipulated by i the award, and Florence Bauckham was charged with having received | such a wage. Inspector Hood appeared for the Labour Department, and stated that Miss Bauckham worked for Townsley from July, 1905, to July, 1906. She Teceived £1 per week instead of 255, which is the "wage stipulated by the award. Townsley stated that he was not of the provisions 6f the award, but the Department considered that every employer should be ,«OTiversant with the award affecting Townsley was now out of business, and was living in Wellington. Florence Bauckham stated that she did not know that it was compulsory for heir to receive 25s per week. The Inspector said he thought a i nominal fine would meet the case of Miss Bauckham. The Court fined Townsley £2 and costs, and in the case against Miss Bauckham recorded a breach of the award, but did not inflict any penalty. Evidence was taken in the plumbers' dispute. Mr S. E. Wright, secretary of the Employers' Association, appeared for the employers, and Mr J. Campbell for the Plumbers' Union. Samuel Kingdon, master plumber, called by Mr Campbell, said he had' been in business about 30 years in Masterton. He thought that the claims 6f the employees with regard to wages were just. !t Vln answer to a question by the •cßirt, witness said that he had no ' employees at present. When he had paid them the current rate There was a lot of done by boy labour in Master.ton, incases where competent men should be employed. With regard to the cost of living in Masterton, he considered that it was dearer than Wellington. By Mr Wright: All sanitary work carried out in the town had to be passed by the Borough Inspector. Mr Wright said he did not wish to call evidence. He put in a statement of counter proposals adopted by the Wairarapa, master plumbers. The proposals were the same as those adopted by the Wellington employers with the exception of the number of hours. The Wairarapa employers wanted the hours fixed at 48 instead of 46/ as in Wellington. When it was fine weather t;he employees in Masterton were plumbers, but in wet they had to work inside the ■Rfop at the tinsmith trade. The employers also wanted an allowance made for the payment of an extra Is per day to employees instead of providing them with board and lodging. This proposal differed " from that of the Wellington em* ployers. David Alexander Pickering, master plumber, stated that he had been in business for about three years, and employed seven plumbers. The custom in the past for country employers had been to pay Is per day extra to the employees, and not provide any board. Another custom with the plumbers here had been to allow the employees to work extra, so that they might make up the expense of keeping two homes. By Mr Campbell: He employed four competent plumbers, and paid them 10s per day each. He was not aware that Wellington employers coming into the district had to pay Is 4d per hour. He kept licensed plumbers employed in his shop. Mr S. E. Wright, representing the employers, said he did not wish to call any evidence in connection with the saddlers' dispute. Mr F. W. Butler, on behalf of the Saddlers' Union, said the Union had agreed to the demands of the I employers in Masterton with the ex- ' ceptionofa few minor alterations which had been given effect to. Evidence was taken in connection with the Letterpress Machinists' dispute. Messrs F. Pirani and N. McRobie appeared for the employers, and Mr J. O'Connor, secretary of the Union, for the employees. Mr Pirani called the following witnesses Thomas L. Buick, of the i Buick and Russell, proprietors of the Dannevirke Advocate; Reginald O. Alexander, of the firm of Alexander and Beckett, proprietors of the Dannevirke Daily Press; Thomas McCracken,'proprietor of the Greytown Standard; A. C. Major, proprietor of the Wairarapa Age; Joseph Payton, proprietor of the Wairarapa Daily Times, and E. H. . W addington. , J Mr O'Connoi 1 called Robert SutherJBand, machinist at the Wairarapa "ipDaily Times Office. The hearing of the dispute will bo resumed in Wellington on Friday morning. The Typographical dispute was next called Sji. Messrs F. Pirani and N. appeared for the employers and Messrs A. D. Robbie, Vice-President of the Typographical Union and J. W. F. McDougall, Secretary of the Union, for the employees.

A great deal of evidence was called by both sides, the evidence being purely of a technical nature. The Court adjourned at 5 p.m.