LABOURERS' UNION CLAIMS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9046, 23 March 1908, Page 5

LABOURERS' UNION CLAIMS.

DISCUSSED BY WAIRARAPA EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION. SYMPATHETIC EMPLOYERS. MATTER TO GO TO THE, COURT.. A meetiog was held in the Dominion Hall on Saturday afternoon of those employers cited by the General I Labourers' Union in connection with the dispute to be heard before the Conciliation Board between the Union and the employers, on the claims put forward by the Union. The meeting was convened by the Wairarapa Employers' Association. The following were present:—Messrs M. Caselberg, D. P. Loasby (Mayor of Greytown), W. J. Welch and J. M. Coradine (delegates to the Conciliation Board for the local bodies cited), S. Connelt, A. Haughey, J. Elder, C Taylor, W. Hodges. The secretary (Mr W. M. Easthope), in explaining the objects of the meeting, said that it was generally believed that the dispute was really fomented by Conciliationj Board representatives, and it wasl better, if possible to take the casestraight to the Arbitration Court. Mr Caselberg mentioned that Mr Pryor, general secretary of the Employers' Association, had considered it advisable to take the case to theCourt without the intervention of the 1 Conciliation Board, as the Board proceedings often prejudiced the case when it came before the Court. Mr Coradine, after a few preliminary remarks relative to the procedure of the Conciliation Board and Arbitration Court, said the time had gone past when anything of the kind before the meeting should be approached in a hostile spirit. The only thing which would help the case when it came before the Court, if it was decided to take it there, was evidence, and he could not emphasise the point too strongly. If the employers adopted a hostile attitude at the Couit they would .have to show very good cause for their hostility, or it would be in vain. The disputenow before the Court' in Wellington, was a good illustration of what the Court did and the most searching evidence was being procured as to the rises in rents commodities, etc. which bore directly on the wages question. If one side proved its case and the other failed to answer substantially the case as proved, the verdict would of course go to the better presented case. That was the position in a nutshell so far as the' Arbitration Court was concerned. It must, moreover, not be assumed that the men were not acting rightly in asking something. In what they were doing they were merely adopting a course opened to them by law, and the employers must respect that. Again, both employers and workers must'expect to give a little and personal feeling should be entirely subordinated—in fact lost sight of altogether. The demands were set out by the Union plainly enough, and the employers should be prepared to concede something. The question before the employers, and before the meeting, was, in short—were the employers prepared to recognise that the men were entitled to some increase or were they not? If so, then it might be pieferable to go to the Conciliation Board, where the claims would possibly be adjusted cheaply and expeditiously. If not, then the Arbitration Court was the appropriate tribunal, and the employers must go to it with a case replete with facts which would bear* out their contentions against the justice of the men's claims. The local bodies had, as was probably known, decided that their duty was to go to the final authority—the Arbitration Court. Speaking from an employer's point of view he said he thought the employees were going to get something, and, what was more, they were entitled to something. Mr Caselberg: I am very glad to hear that. Mr Coradine continuing, said that from his experience as an employer of labour, the Union now being discussed had a case to put before the Court which would enable it to get much of what it asked. The men were fully justified in asking for an increased wage, the cost of living having advanced out of all proportion to the wages many of them were receiving. Conditions were not the same now as they were yearsjago. Mr Caselberg: In Wairarapa? Mr Coradine: Yes. in Wairarapa. Mr Caselberg: There is a wide difference betweeen conditions here and in Wellington. Mr Coradine replied that speaking from experience he thought the conditions in Wairarapa last winter were sufficient to show that his contentions were right. For nearly six months of the year the wages of . many, during Hie long, wet period. i averaged from 25s to 80s per week, and yet these men had to pay the ' increases in necessaries of life along with more fortunately situated workers. It was obvious, therefore that the men might reasonably expect something, and the only question **ow was whether the case was to go to the Conciliation Board or not. Personally, he thought the Court was the better place, as the case would be treated more judicially and the claims would be decided on the weight of evidence. Mr Caselberg said he would like to hear the claims read, as he was not familiar with them, nor the justice or otherwise of them. The secretary read the claims. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS, SUMMARISED. The statement of claims set out that a full week's work ahall consist of 46 hours. When it is necessary to prepare material or work before the ordinary hours of commencing work, the employer may employ not more than two workers to do such necessary work for not more than half-an-hour before the ordinary time for commencing work, and in such case only the ordinary rate of pay shall bj paid for the time so worked. In tunnel work the hours shall not exceed eight hours per shift from bank 'o bunk for five shifts a week, including halfhour for crib time, and four hours on Saturday. Six hours shall constitute a day's work when workers are working in wet places or in foul air. The following shall be the minimum rates of wages:—Tunnel work: Tunnel men and timber men, lis per shift; all other workers employed underground, 10s 6d. Quarry work: Powder men and crusher men, Is 6d

per hour; spawlers, hammer and drill men, jumper men and quarry men. Is 4Ad. Buildings: Labourers employed in connection with the erection, alteration or demolition of any building, or in excavating or preparing ground for the same. Is 4£d; labourers engaged as scaffolders, Is 6d. Meat works: Pullers, painters, ■fleshers, pelt-classers, curing dolly, dollymen, steam dryer and wringermen, scudders, skin-washers, wool.scuurera and trimmers, Is 4Ad per hour; general floor hands, Is 3£d per hour; freezing chamber, hands, is Gd; discharging hands, Is 9d; cooling-floor and fat-house hands, gut-house hands, manure and bloodcrushing hands, Is 3fd; boning hands, Is 6d. General: Curbing and channelling and sewer work, Is 6d per hour; platelayer?, asphalt-makers and tar men, tool sharpeners, and men working on any "face" where lifeline is required, and concrete workers, Is 4Jd; labourers not hereinbefore specified, Is 3Jd. Permanent hands, where no deductions are inr.de for wet weather or holidays, minimum of 9s per day, with increase in proportion to the' above scale, according to the nature of the work. Clauses also define "overtime," sety out holidays, claim special provisions for payment of wages, accommodation, use of life ropes, suburban work, and the clause demands preference to unionists where,, all other things be equal, unionists and non-unionists are in competition. All tools to be provided by the employer. After the claims had been read Mr Ca&elberg remarked that there appeared nothing so very unreasonable about them.

Mr Coradhie: That is what I contend myself. Mr Welch said a cursory examination of the claims might not reveal any very serious demands, but if they were closely examined it would be seen that local bodie3 were the ones who stood to suffer very materially, and they decided without hesitation to have the matter taken' to the Court. He moved on the lines of the resolution passed by the local bodies' delegates on Wednesday: "That as there was no dispute in this district between the workers and their employers, and no desire has been expressed for a conference, the case be taken direct to the Arbitration Court. Mr Haughey said he would like to make a few remarks before the discussion proceeded further. For years past workers had not been satisfied with their wages, and it remained for the meeting to say whether in justice they were entitled to more. If the employers present were of the opinion that the wages should be increased, let them strike the keynote at once, and say whether it should be a shilling a day rise, or more, i or less. The case could then go to the Conciliation Board. If they thought it was a fair thing to give so much a day more it was far better to say at once. Personally, he believed the increases in wages had not been commensurate with the rise in the cost of living, and i,t nesded an increase of from 30 to 35 per cent, in the wages of labourers to adjust them proportionately with the rise in commodities of every-day life. If necessary he could prove this assertion conclusively, and he thought it was high time the employers of Wairarapa faced the position in a proper manner. He thought that before tha men gave way the employ- » ers should give way, as if the demands were reasonable, a« they were under the circumstances, the sacrifice should begin not at the bottom but at the top. Speaking plainly the men were not being sufficiently remunerated, and it would pay the employer to concede something Every man must be in such a position in society as to be able to bring up a family in the right way, and it was not for the Employers' Association to treat the demands of the men in a hostile manner. Mr Caselberg: lam very glad indeed ti> hear such remarks. May I ask do you employ labour? Mr Haughey: Yes. Mr Caselberg: How many men. Mr Haughey: Oh. a few. Mr Caselberg: Well, I repeat that lam pleased to hear your remarks, but there are perhaps, other employers who have not been so lucky as you. If you carry out the principles you have enunciated there is certainly no need for Conciliation Boards and Arbitration Couit* for , such as you. After some further discussion Mr >■ Coradine then seconded the motion proposed by Mr, Welch, as there were other things besides wages which made it desirable that the judgment of a judicial tribunal should be obtained. Mr Loasby agreed that local bodies would find the claims more irksome than others, and was also of opinion that the Court should be the body to adjust the case. Finally the following motion was substituted and carried unanimously: "That as there is no prospect of conciliation the case be taken to the Arbitration Court." It decided to forward a copy of the resolution to other meetings of employers in connection with the claim'. The meeting also resolved to sec jro the services of Mr Pryor to represent the employers at the Conciliation Board and Arbitration Court, at a remuneration of £1 Is per day and travelling expenses.