ARBITRATION COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12628, 16 October 1905, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPLAINTS OF EMPLOYERS

THE HARDSHIPS OF PREFERENCE

In consequence of complaints that many employers find that reoent dccieions of the Arbitration Court are bearrather heavily upon them, a " Times" reporter yesterday made inquiries with Regard (to these statements from iMr H. Meld, the secretary of the Employers' Association. Mr Field at once admitted that there were such complaints. He said: Employers 'have generally objected to tha preference clauses on principle, be- j lieving it was an invasion of their free-1 dom without them receiving any equiva-1 lent for it. It was maintained that it was both illogical and unjust. On the other hand it has been held that although they had not met these difficulties, there was no real hardship ivflicted by the operation of the, prefer- ■ ence clauses, and that it really didn't matter much as far as the employer was concerned whether preference we given or not. In a recent deputation H to the City Council, the Mayor asked the employee' deputation for facts, and not fancies. We replied that there H were plenty of facts now available, and that the sittings of the Court about to H be held would probably supply plenty more. This prophecy has been abun- ■■ dantly fulfilled, and I will give you one or two illustrations of it. : In one case the brother of an employer, together with his family, came from Melbourne to Wellington to live, WM and 'being out of employment, partly ■H on account of their non acquaintance IH with the district, the employer put his nephew on to drive a cart. He gave ■ him the full rate of pay, although, of course, in the first instance the young man was not equal to earning it, for the reason that he did not know the town. However, his uncle gave him the fuLl rate of pay. Notwithstanding that, and also the fact that by gaining experience the young fellow soon became able to earn his living from other employers, because he did not belong to the union, a breach of the preferenoe clause was held to have been committed, and the employer was fined £2 and costs. It thus appears that the operations of -the preference clauses over-ride the obligations of friendship and of kinship. Case No. 2 shows another aspect of i question. An employer engaged a of the "union on a Thursday to commence work on the following Monday morning. On the Sunday morning, about 11 o'clock, the workman went to the employer and stated that on account of illness in his family he would not be able,to start work on Monday morning, as agreed upon. The employer was in a good deal of a fix, because he was committed to an engage- ] ment which must be met by 8 o'clock on the Monday morning. "In order to carry on his business efficiently under the circumstances, he cast about to find someone suitable, A young man, whom he had known for some two years or more, was out of work. He ! had known this young man as one of , good character and attentive to his duties, and equal to the work of drivel ing, as he had been engaged in that occupation for a long time. The employer accordingly put him on in place of the workman who was unable to take on the joflb. The young man commenced work at 7 o'clock the following morning. Of course it was impossible for the employer to go and see the " employment book " of the union, ibecause it was Sunday, and the office was closed, and wouldn't be open until 9 o'clock on Monday morning, and he wanted the man to start work at 7 o'clock on that morning, in order that ; fhe should -be< in time «to< serve„ his cus--I'.tentersriat 8 o'clock. Of it.was held that a" breach of the preference clauses had been committed, and that a fine of £2 and costs must be imposed. ■ From tks case it appears that it does not matter what the exigeneies»uof• .?&;• man's business are—whetherit. isv fet^ts-*; ible or possible to see the "employment book" or not —the employer must not engage a man until he has seen it. In the third case an employer put on a man casually. On the second day of this casual hand's engagement he showed himself to be an especially well- j qualified man at th© class of work he was put to. This fact was attested by the strong evidence of the employer, J H supported by the evidence of one of his own "workmen, who had worked •with the casual hand from the beginning. Further, it was proved by customers, who asked again and again for this man to do the class of work that was required; and so, being satisfied of the efficiency of the casual hand, the employer put the man oh his permanent( staff. The "employment book" was pro- ; duoe-tl in Coui^t, and examined by the menubers of the Court, as was also the secretary of the union, who had charge the bopk. It was shown that there only one member of the union out i of employment who claimed to be proficient in that particular class of work, , and he had been dismissed by the same employer becausa he had been.found to ; be unsatisfactory. There was no attempt to prove that the union had a man out of employment who was equal in effiH ciency to the man who was casually employed, and who was subsequently placed on the permanent staff; and the H Court itself didn't suggest' that there H were equally efficient men out of employment. The decision, however, was that the employer had committed a H "Breach of the preference clause because he did not prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had examined th© H* "employment -book." On this point there was conflict of evidence between H the Inspector of Awards and the employer. and, apparently, on account of this conflict, it was kupossibLeNfar the H employer to satisfy the Court that he had examined the "book." This case, thei'efore, proves that even if you can H prove that the man engaged is more H efficient than the member of the union who is unemployed claims to be, you cannot engage him. H Taking these three cases together, it will be seen that it does not matter what relationship exists between the employer and the worker, it does not H appear to matter what may be the cxigencies of the employer's business, and even the t-est of efficiency, after all, is H not the test as to whether you may employ a man or not. ■ STABLE-WORK. A decision by the Court on the quesH tion of sitable-work is of very general H interest to employers of drivers, and it 'will be received with considerable H astonishment by a number of such emH ployers. It may be said here that in the former award dealing with drivers there had been a provision for the emH ployment of a stableman to do stableH work in large stables. This had been H found to be very objectionable by the H employers, and on the hearing of a f nesh H dispute in the same occupation, the emH ployers were successful in getting that H provision deleted. When the new award H came into force, the employers began Ha system of ad j ustment to meet the alH tered conditions, and one employer, a H repi'esentative of many others, followH ing a custom that had obtadried in some Brother staibles, aaTanged for Jiis. staff to ■ 'come on in sections and in turns. He H. employed 'between twenty and thirty H drivers, and he arranged for four of H them to come on the first week early H and feed the horses, and to come back H late at night and " supper " them, the H other men being let off the duty of the H early feeding and the late "suppering" H of the animals, and simply coming on in H time to clean the horses and harness H them ready for the day's work ; and the H second week a different team of four H men took up the running. By this H time the employer had been told by the

secretary of the union that this system would not be allowed. He then put it to the men whether they approved going on in relays in this fashion, or whether each man would prefer to go on early and work late in attending to his own horse or horses. By a majority, the men approved the sectional working or " week-on " system. The employer was charged with having committed a breach of the award, because he had adopted the "week-on" system, and it was held by the Court that he had done so, and he was fined. The Court held that a driver may att&nd to his own horse, or a similar number of horses as that h© ordinarily drives, but not to others without extra payment. An illustration was given by the Court of an emploj'er who might have horses for his own convenience— but it was not the duty of the driver to attend to those horses af the driver was not accustomed to drive them. It was held by the employer that it was quite optional to work tiie men on the system of "week-on," or to bring each one back to attend to his owii horses solely; but the Court ruled that he had no such option, and that the terms of the award were explicit. A question was raised by the secretary of the union, after judgment was delivered, as to whether an employer and his drivers might not agree as to taking or adopting the " week-on " system," but the Court declined to give any advice on the point. OTHER DECISIONS.

In addition to the heaviness of the fines imposed for merely nominal breaches of awards, there are several decisions- which have given considerable concern to the employers in the district. In one case a journeyman butcher on the Saturday before Easter Monday wanted to take his wife and child into the country on the Saturday afternoon. He asked his em!>loyer, early in the week, if he would et him off to catch the train en the Saturday afternoon. The employer asked him how he would manage about going his meat round. He replied, " Well, if I come two hours earlier on Saturday morning, and cut my meat, I can get. through my round by two o'clock in the afternoon, and can then catch the 4 o'clock train and get away, and as I have not to be back again for work until Tuesday morning, I can spend Sunday and part- of Monday with my people, and leave on Monday night." The employer replied, " Oh, well, I don't mind. If you can see your way to work, it, I'll let you off at 2 o'clock, if you have then done the round." So the workman came and worked two hours earlier than usual in the morning, and got off at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, instead of at 9 o'clock, at night, as was usually the case with him. Bat the Court held that a breach of tha award had been committed, and both employer and workman were fined.

In another butcher's casa the employer was under contract obligations to supply meat to his Majesty's men-of-war, to the Government railway diningcar, to the hospital, and to some other important public institution. He received word that they must be supplied with meat on Easter Monday—a special need in each ca.se. He was under the obligation by his contract to supply them at short notice when it was required of him so to do. Thinking it better to make the time as short as possible for each of several men, rather than have one man working a long time, he called back four workmen, and gave a job to each of them. The timeoccupied was very short, as each man simply fulfilled one contract, and the four men got away for the day. When charged at the Court, the employer pleaded that on a former occasion a baker had l>een charged with employing men on a holiday 'because- the inmates of the prison had threatened to mutiny oh account of the -bread being stale, the employer had in escaped condemnation, the'-Cfeurt holding that thy circumstances" were' exceptional, and that the action of th® employer was justified iby the •circumstances.' The •masteiP butcher, in the case mentioned, pleaded -that there was dCstrong similarity' between'-his cas&*naiid the ono quoted;. - ' Nevertheless^-: hfe was fined, and so were each.of the four employees.