THE BOOTMAKERS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 278, 24 November 1898, Page 2

THE BOOTMAKERS' DISPUTE.

BOARD OF CONCILIATION.

Yesterday afternoon the Board of Conciliation met at the Supreme Court buildings in order to consider the dispute between the Auckland Operative Bootmakers' Industrial Union and the boot manufacturers of Auckland, particulars of which were published in the 'Star' recently. The Eev. A. H. Collins (Chairman of the Board) presided, and the bther members of the Board present were Messrs J. M. Shera, J. J. Holland, M.H.K., Fawcus and Lucas, Messrs Coles, T. Hodgson, and J. Trenwith appeared as representatives of the boot manufacturers of the Auckland district.

Mr J. Arnold, representing the Auckland Operative Bootmakers' Industrial Union, stated the case for the operatives. He mentioned in open^ ing that three boot upper manufacturers of Auckland had been joined with the boot manufacturers at the sug-g-esticm of the Board, but he wished jt to be distinctly understood that there was no dispute with them. Mr Gooclacre, of New Plymouth, for the boot manufacturers of New Plymouth had also been joined with the Auckland manufacturers, on the suggestion of the Board, and at the request of the manufacturers, and had been asked to accept the operatives' statement. Mr Goodacre replied, refusing to consider the matter, and a dispute had according-ly been filed with him.

Mr Arnold said the relationship between the employers and operatives in Auckland since a big strike, which took plnce here in 1891, had been' strained, and the employers had no great amount of love towards members of the Union-: Some employers in Auckland had threatened to dismiss any of their employees whom they found to be members of the Union. About, a fortnight ago it was whispered that such a thing as a petition would be presented by the other side, and that the men would be asked to sign it in favour of a local statement. That petition had not been presented yet, but they would no doubt hear of it, before the case was over. The Union had recommended evenmember of the boot trade in Auckland, whether members of the Union or not, to sign the petition, and nearly all had done so. There was a Bootmakers' Federation in New Zealand. Mr Arnold went on to refer to the. judge's award in the dispute last year, and said that since that award had to bo filed in Auckland the number of members of the Operatives' Union in Auckland had increased from eighty to 207. This did not look very much as if the men hero were anxious to file a local statement. The Board was in this position—-that if it made a recommendation at variance from this award, it would be recommending employees here to break that award or else withdraw, from the federation. There were' 80 boot opera tives at present working in Auckland .who were not members of the Union.

In reply to. a question by Mr Shera, Mr Arnold said that this award did not cover the girls employed in the boot factories. >

Mr Hodgson: 'Question.'

Mr Arnold went on to say that the log provided for a minimum weekly wage of 40s a week. During the past few years 40s had > been considered as fair/ It met the case of the most inferior men of the trade, except in exceptional cases. Even • these were met by the award of the court, ns would be seen in the clauses of the award. The piecework conditions in the award would prevent injustice, being done: The minimum wage if it was fixed must be one on which an inferior workman or any other workman could live on, and £2 was considered to be the lowest wage on which a workman' could be expected to live and do justice to his creditors. But numbers of first-class workmen were at present working for 30s a week, and there were cases in which men who were out of their time twelve months had been working for 25s a week. Regarding the apprentices' clause, the proportion provided of apprentices to workmen (one to three) in the award was quite sufficient to cope with requirements, and in the South 'under these conditions there was even a surplus of labour. In Auckland at the present time there were 335 men and 184 boys employed in boot factories. Under the award no, apprentice at present employed would be interfered with or have to be dismissed, and therefore it would be some time before this proportion was reduced if the award came into force. In the benching department particularly it would be a considerable time before the proportion of three men to one boy came into force and things righted themselves. ■ Mr Arnold went on to refer to the various clauses in the award, and said that, in clause 4 it was set forth that no restriction was placed on the output of any machine in a roaufacturer's Clause 5 said that the 'Manufacturer was to have the fullest control over his factory.

Mr Holland: I should think so.No man should have any control over my factory than myself.

Mr Arnold said that he only quoted the clause to show that manufacturers were protected in that respect by the award. The manufacturers might say that they had been interfered with in respect to the control of their factories.

In his remarks Mr Arnold explained that the award he had quoted limited the number of apprentices to men in the clicking department to one to three, and in the machinery department to one to foul". In the benching department there .were in Auckland 203 men and 121 boys employed, or one boy to one and a-quarter men, instead of one to four. In the finishing department here there were 48 men and 31 boys, or one boy to one and ahalf men, instead of one to. three. Clause 4, he said, mentioned that if a division or sub-division of labour were required it should be permitted, subject- to the minimum wage. This was a fair measure to the employer as it permitted him to divide his labour as he liked and to employ any proportion of weekly wage men and pieceworkers.

In answer to Mr Holland Mr Arnold said that he was sent for by the Auckland Union to carry out this dispute. 110. also explained in answer to the Chairman that 'clicking' meant cutting up the skin preparatory to further developments. 'Benching1' consisted of putting the upper on the last, putting on the sole, and partly finishing it. The finisher completed the work. The pressman cut put the sole, but did not come under the log. In reply to Mr Hodgson!he said as far as Auckland was concerned the award was practically binding on the workmen but .not on the employers. The -first witness called by Mr Arnold was Mr James Aggers, secretary

to the Auckland Operative Boot-inak-ers' 'industrial Union. He stated that he had been ; secretary .of the Bootmakers 1 Union nearly two years. The membership IS months ago was a little over 80, and was ..now: 297. He attributed the increased membership to the d fact that they hoped to get fairer conditions. A petition had been circulating round the factories lately, and witness advised members to sign it. Some refused; he. thought because the men were afraid of being discharged if theydid so.Witness said that they might have .unprofitable work gjven out to them. Several who had joined the Union had asked that the fact should be. kept quiet. He had heard of a. manufacturer calling members together and asking them .if they were members of the Union. They replied in the negative. The question of expense was a serious one to the Union, and the present case would probably cost £200 before it was finished. A person not a member of the Union, therefore, was free of expense, and reaped all the benefits. Clause 10 of the statement specified a week of 48 hours, but the majority worked 45 hours. The minimum wage was £2. Witness /had been a benchman about 12 years, and had had experience in various factories. An ordinary man should get more than £3 per week. The. overtime pay, according to the statement, was 3d per hour over and above the ordinary rate of pay. The feeling of the workmen was always that there should be no overtime work if others were out of employment. The figures stated by Mr Arnold with regard to the proportion of men. to boys were correct. The Court then adjourned till this morning.

Mr T. Hodgson, one of those who appeared on behalf of the employers, had brought a boot into Court in oi'der to assist the Board in connection with technicalities to which he would have to refer. When Mr Arnold began his explanation of technical terms, such as 'clicking,' etc., Mr Hodgson courteously handed the boot over to him for his assistance in explaining the various expressions used in the trade.

(Continued on Page 5.)