ARBITRATION COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3005, 30 September 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING AT MASTERTON.

A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held at Masterton, yesterday, before His Honor Judge Sim, and Messrs J. A. M'Culloch and S. Brown.

BREACHES OF AWARDS,

BUTCHERS' AWARD,

G. W. Deller, of Carterton, was charged with employing R. Banks, Jan., at less than the award rate, with employing G. R. Banks, sen., as a general hand during March, 1908, at the rate of 30s per week, and meat provided; with employing G. Gorman as a general hand during March, 1908, at 30s per week with board and lodging; with employing J. Cadenhead as a general hand during March, 1908, at 80s per week and board and lodging; with employing W. Erskine as second shopman during the name period at the rate of 30s per week with house jrent, meat and firewood. All the! employees aforesaid were also charged with breaches of the award for working under the conditions stated.

Inspector Hood prosecuted. Mr Deller conducted his own case and pleaded not guilty. ; The Inspector said he bad discovered the breaches on an examination of the books. The wages which should have been paid were £2 10s per week in every instance. Defendant said he had was unaware that he was committing a breach of the award. He had employees in his service who had been with him for thirty years. He had made liberal allowance for meat and other things to his men, and never had any complaints. He believed he had made up the deficiency in wages amply to the £2 10s, but had not made arrangements for calling his employees to prove this, thinking it unnecessary. The case was ordered to stand' down, and later Dr. Trimble appeared for defendant, who accounted to a greater or les-i exient for the deficiency in the men's waijes by allowances for meat, huuse rent, firewood, etc.

The Court exnre°s?d its dissatisfaction at defendant's method of paying his employees, and said a breach had been estabmn *>. A fi'ie of £5 and Cours fees was imposed to cover all Dellor's charge*, the men being fined 10s each and Court fees. M. O. Aronsten admitted having failed to pay an employee the award rate, but stated that he was selling meat by auction at the time, and was quite unaware that his general assistant, who was the subject of the information, came under the award. Inspector Hood did not press for a penalty, and a breach only was recorded.

TYPOGRAPHICAL AWARD.

INTERPRETATION OF A CLAUSE.

T. McCracken, of Greytown, newspaper proprietor, pleaded not guilty to a breach of clause 10 of the Typographical Award, under which he was charged with having failed to indenture an apprentice. , Inspector Hood prosecuted, and Mr McCracken conducted his own case. The Inspector said that defendant interpreted the award to mean, in reference to an apprentice, that if the. employer exercised his election to apprentice a lad, and the lad refused to be indentured, then the. employer need not pay the ...increased rate of wages specified in section 12. Defendant's arguments were on the lines stated by the Inspector. Mr McCracken said it was almost an impossibility to get lads in country towns to be indentured. He thought it was manifestly unfair that when an employer endeavoured to obey the spirit o£ the law he should be penalised. The Inspector contended that the lad Bhould have received increased wage 3 as provided in clause 12 of the award or have been dismissed, as it did not follow because one lad refused to be indentured the next one would also retuhe. His Honor said that it was clear that so far as the present charge was concerned it would have to he dismissed, as defendant wa3 not obliged to indenture the lad, out the view taken by' the Court of the Causes referred to was that defendant must either indenture the lad at once, pay the increased wages as provided j by clause 12, or dismiss him.

GENERAL LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Evidence waa next taken in connection with the General Labourers' dispute. Mr M. J. Reardon appeared for the Union, and Mr W. Prvor for the employers.

W. T. Mansfield, TownJClerk and Borough Engineer, of Masterton, said that the permanent r taff of the Borough, about 14 men, received Is ljd per hour, the working foremen Is 4id. Casual employees received la lid per hour also, their off-days being deducted. The head kerber received Is 4Jd. Overtime was at the rate of time and a-quarter for thijee hours, and after that time and ahalf, double time being paid on Sundays. Recognised holidays were ob • served, and douole time was paid on these days if men were asked to work. Occasionally work a distance from the town was done, and an allowance was made in tnis respect. A year's personal experience had shown witness that the work of the mei. was excellent, and quite up to the standard of Home workers. Wages were paid fortnightly, / but weekly pay could be arranged for if necessary. Henry Drake, general labourer, stated that he was receiving Is per hour, working for the County Council. Ho did not receive pay for off-daye, i for wet weather, etc. The Borough I Council had paid Is IJI. Working for the County entailed after going long distance, by cycle or otherwise. Corad»"ne and Whittaker, builders, had paid witness Is per hour last year. One week, through wet weather, witness only earned ss, sometimes aeain his wages only reached 30s. He remembered Mr Coradine stating before the Conciliation Board, that only 30s per week was averaged by labouring men during the winter. Witness wore out a 12s pair of boota in six weeks. He could not maintain his family on the wages received, and had had judgment summonses issued against him.

By Mr Pryor: He said in earnest that tar work wore out a pair of boots every six weeks, and could prove it by his accounts from bootmakers, if necessary. Tar work was heavier work than ordinary nick-and-shovel work.

Archibald L?e, employed by Taylor and Hodge, said he received la ljd per hour, a wage he had received from other firms. Witness had a wife and four children, and would have a difficulty in making ends meet but for getting in overtime. Lost time accounted for him receiving only 80s per week during some weeks. He had once received Is 4d per hour.

By Mr Pryor: Hp had only received Is 4d per hour when labour was scarce. He had only been able to exist on his income and had run into i ebt.

Michael O'Meara, a County Council employee, said he had worked ahout six years for the county, and was receiving 8s per day. His duty was to attend to road matters, and he had to keen a horse, going as far as thir teen miles to work. On one occasion he had to go 50 miles, to the Coast. Witness had on occasions to have leave home at six o'clock for work, and arrived back at eight p.m. Be was a married man with five children. The upkeep of his horse, apart from paddocking, ran into 6s per month, and the cost of bread and meat for his family was nearly £3 per month. James Kennedy, employed by J. Elder, said he received 9s per day, last year receiving 10s per day as a scaffolder. Working on buildings last winter 25s to 30s per week was earned. He con idered cement work was very hard work, and hard on clothes and boot?. Little accommodation wa* pnvided f or workers for their personal convenience. Martin Kerins, road contractor, said he paid his men 9s and 10s per day, ' working them 48 hours per week. The casual man lost a good deal of time, and witness would be quite willing to pay is Sd per hour to good mei. Witne3s had no objection to the preference clause, though he preferred to choose his own men. Quajrrymen received ,10s per day sometimes Us.

Mr Reardon went into the witness box and stated that there were a j thousand labourers between Masterton and Wellington concerned in the dispute. When the case came before the Conciliation Board at Masterton John Carmody gave evideqce to the effect that he was paying 10s per day for labourers *md up to 15s per day for men doing se<ver work. This was all the evidence called | for the Union. j Mr Pryor,, for the employers, said j he did not propose to call evidence, | and closed his case. In addressing the Court on the evidence Mr Pryor traversed at length the details regarding rates demanded in special instances. Speaking to the general question of arise in wages for unskilled labour he asked the Court, in the interests of the laoourers them-1 selves, not tj make the standard J prohibitive, especially in view of the | present labour conditions prevailing. He contended that a serious responsibility rested upon the Court, as any material alteration of the wages conditions for unskilled labour would affect skilled.,!abour . sympathetically. Mr Pyror thuuaht it extremely inadvisable to include local bodies in the award of the Court, •although Borough Councillors had i been included by the Court. It was well-known that redress for grievances regarding wages could gener- y ally be obtained from such bodies; where the weight of the ratepayers was behind the workers. Especially was it inadvisable because relief works were a common thing with local bodies, and they should have a free hand in such an important matter as the wages' to be paid on such works. Mr Reardon then addressed the Court producing copious statistical evidence to show the extent and population of Counties, and the conditions under which employees in such Counties must work. He answered Mr Pryor's contentions p regarding the proposed exemption of local bodies by stating that if it were shown that local bodies were treating their employees fairly they might reasonably claim exemption. But it was shown otherwise. It was also shown by the evidence that several employers already recognised that the current rate of wages for labourers was not sufficient, soma of them already paying a high wage.

.TAILORS' DISPUTE. I

' Evidence in the Tailors' dispute was then taken, Mr P. Muir appearing for the Union, and Mr Pryor for the employers. Albert Webb, master tailor, of Masterton, said that he had worked as a journeyman) tailor. He objected t6 the apprentice clause, as it was difficult In busy times to get men to come to the country, and country tailors had to train their own apprentices. Witness thought it essential that apprentices should learn pressing as part of their trade. Witness had to do pressing himself. Witness' own apprentice did pressing, and though only three years at the trade he could make almost any .'gar-, ment made on the premises. Witness found a difficulty in making up the log, and on one^occasion neither four of his employees nor himself could compute it properly, according to the computation of the Unicjn Secretary. If the daily wage system were introduced, which witness favoured, he cculd share the work round equally. Bv Mr Muir: It would take from three to six months for an apprentice to learn to press a vest or a pair of trousers. This was the only witness called. Mr Pryor then addressed the Court, asking particularly that the request of the employers for a daily wage be considered earnestly. Under present conditions the employers found the weekly wage to their detriment, and when they found it necessary to shorten hsnds the men put off were never certain to be found again. The system the employers now asked for had worked very satisfactorily in the South '.lsland, and was to the advantage of both parties. Mr Pryor also traversed the evidence: to show that an?increase in wages was not shown to be justified. Mr Muir also addressed the Court in favour of ths claims, contending as regards apprentices' that th>y should only be allowed to press their own work. He strongly opposed the

counter claims of employers aa re-

garded apprentices, Btating that it . would Have a detrimental effect on 4 many country shops. He opposed the daily wage system.