CONCILIATION BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 50, 28 February 1901, Page 2

CONCILIATION BOARD.

IRON WOTiKERS' TRADE

The Conciliation Board resumed at 10 o'clock this morning, when there were present: the chairman (Rev. A. H. Collins). Messrs. L. J. Bagnall, E. W. Alison, John Fawcus, and VY. H. Lucas. The matter for consideration was a dispute in the ironworkers' trade, the Auckland Iron Moulders, Industrial Cnion ol' Workmen having formulated the following statement of conditions of wages and labour required: —(.1) Forty-four hours to constitute a week's work; eight hours on five days and four hours on Saturdays. (2) The minimum wage to be one shilling and three pence per hour for journeymen m'ouhiers. ('■'<) Overtime lo he paid for the first two j hours to be vinie and a quarter. Ai'tef I that time, time aud a half. Each day jto stand by itself. Double time to be 'paid for Sundays, Christmas Day, New | Year's Day, Queen's Birthday, (loot? Friday, Labour Day, and Anniversary Day. * (4) The proportion of boys to journeymen to be one to three (or fraction of the first three). All apprentices to be indentured for six years. Wages for apprentices to tie for the first year six shillings per week, with a rise of live shillings per week each following year. (5) All piece-work and sub-contracting to ba strictly prohibited. (G) Only two classes of workers to be recognised, viz., journeymen and apprentices. (7) Members of Ihe Union to havo preference of employment to nonUnionists.

The following employers were cited: Messrs litanev and Sons. Arch llil.: (' aud A. Colliuß-s. Arch Hill; Colonial Sugar Co.. Chelsea: Dunn. Smith and Co., Custom-street; F. and TV. Fowler, Victoria-street: G. Fraser and Sons, Stanley-street; Judd and Sons, Thames: Masefield and Co., Albertstreet: McCoskrie and Son. Chapelstreet; A'ieholls Brothers, Upper Queen-street: A. and G. Price, Thames; G. Proud and Son, Cook-si.: Rae, Lower Hobson-street; Sea<rar Pros., Lower Hobson-street.

The Union was represented by Mr Arthur llosser, also by Mr \V. McGovvan, president of the I'nion, and Mr Thomas Riley, secretary. Most, of the firms cited were represented.

The chairman said he bad received the following- from the Thames addressed to tlie chairman of Board of Conciliation: — Gentlemen. whereas that on the 2Sth day of the present month you do sit lo take evidence concerning, and adjudicate upon, a dispute as between the Auckland Iron Moulders' Union, and certain employers, we, the undersigned, iron moulders in the employ of Messrs A. and G. Price, Thames, and Judd and Sons, Thames, befng affected by, and included in such dispute, hereby make request of you that the firms of A. and (i. Price and Judd and Sons, Thames, be not included under your decisions in that dispute for the following reasons: — (1) The wages received by the iron moulders in ■ the employ of the above mentioned firms is not less than one shilling and threepence per hour. (2) The number of hours' constituting a week's work is' 47, and wages arc paid by the employers as though the number of hours worked are 48. (3) The employees of tlie aforesaid firms are satisfied and content with the conditions of labour as set forth above. We also object to two classes of workers, viz., journeymen and apprentices, being recognised. (.5) And further we complain that, al-i though we are embraced in the dispute referred to, we have received no! notification from the Auckland Iron Moulders' Union in reference to, such dispute. This was signet! by twelve employees at the Thames. Mr A. Price said he had nothing to say further. He had no dispute with his men, and he could venture to say all the men who signed were iron moulders. Air Lucas said these- men were not parties to the dispute. That was not a formal application of withdrawal by Mr Price. Mr Bagnall said tlie men were as much interested as Mr Price. The Chairman said they would discuss that matter in committee. Mr'Rosser said they yesterday received a communication from* the Thames similar to the letter just read, embodying the protest from Thames iron moulders- lie submitted the men had no legal status before the Board. The Union wished to give the men a status, and they apparently refused to accept the position. When, the Union was formed the men at the Thames were asked either to form a Union or join the Auckland one. lie understood that! tlie men at tlie Thames were told that any man who joined a Union would lose his position. At the same time he believed the foundries at the Thames were well conducted and the men well paid and satisfied. Still those foundries were in ' the Northern District, and till should be put on the same footing. The Union sought to bring Auckland foundries up to the same satisfactory position as those at the Thames. .Mr Fowler asked to be struck out on the ground that they were not and never had been iron moulders, but merely brass founders. They only competed against English and German articles. Brass moulding was a special trade by itself. He wa.s quite willing to be cited for a dispute iv the brass moulding trade, but the conditions of the two branches were entirely distinct. Mr Smith joined in Mr Fowler's application for the same reasons. Mr \V. McGowan said the majority of iron moulders could do brass work, but few brass moulders could do iron work. Mr Eosser said brass moulders came in as related trades under clause 23 of the Act. The two trades worked side by side, frequently in the. same establishment), and ojften the same men did the same work, and were employed the same number of hours. Mr Fowler said a special clause in the award for this particular branch would be more suitable. Mr T. T. Masefield said that ail iron moulders were brass moulders, but the present Union were only iron moulders, consequently be thought the brass moulders were justified hi asking to be' relieved. Mr Beaney said neither Mr Fowler nor Mr Smith competed with the iron moulders. Mv McGowan said the majority of iron moulders could, do all kinds of brass fittings. He served his time to both, branches of the trade. The Boa,rd went- into committee to consider Ihe points raised, and upon resuming, the Chairman, said that the Board had considered th ft applications of Messrs Fowler, Dunn Smith. au<? Co., and had decided that under Clause 23

of the Amended Act The brass moulders were related to ironmoulders. _ At the same time the Board was pivjwired if sufficient reason wa.s shown, to formulate iv the finding- a clause to meet the special requirements, if such were shown to exist, of the brass-moulders' branch of the industry. With, regard to the letter from the Thames workmen, the Board ruled they had no locus standi, but with regard to the firms mentioned, decided that under Clause 23 those firms were properly cited, and therefore must be cited as parties to this dispute.

Mr Eosser then opened th e ense for tlie Union. He snid so far there had not been; any bitterness. This -was the- first appearance of this l'nion before the Board. The wages at present were 9/ per day in some phu.-'s, but there was no uniformity of the wages paid in the Auckland District. Thames firms Avere paying higher wages than those in Auckland. Messrs Judd and Sons and Price Bros, paid wages from 9/ to 10/ per day. Messrs Beaney and Sons, Fraser and Sons, Masefield and Co.. and MeCroskrie also paid 9/ per day, and the Sugar Company 10/ per day. One firm he was informed, had not even a man getting 8/ a day. so it was of importance for both masters and men that till should be on thessacm c footing. AH honour to the firms who paid the recognised rate of wages, and the L'nion wished such firms not to have to face competition from others who paid a lower rat*, of wages. Overtime was also in an unsatisfactory condition. Some firms paid time and a quarter, and others only ordinary, time after five o'clock. The Union also contended that the present rate of wages was not sufficient in a trade that took six years to learn. In the South, moulders received from 9/ to 11/ per day. MrUosser said cost of living had gorf^> up, and wages in other trades had advanced. Tlie men had already had a. conference j with the masters. Messrs Masefield i aud Co. deserved thanks with other firms for assisting the l'nion in their eft'orfs lo arrive ala settlement. Unfortunately the employers were not aide to meet tlie men, so the matter had to come to the Board.

In dealing with the conditions of the labour, Mr Kosser said that although 4-1 hours were asked for the Union was willing to agree to -!7 hours, as they understood that was the wish of the masters.

Clause 1 was then agreed to as follows: — Forty-seven hours constitute a week's work, 8J hours on live days, and 41 hours on Saturday.

Clause '-, fixing wages of journeymen at 1/3 per hour, was next con-

side red

Mr l.osser read telegrams from the South offering men 10/, anil even 11/, per day to work at the trade.

Mr Fraser said the employers claimed the right to pay men in accordance with their merits. He did not think l/.'J per hour an unreasonable wage for a good workman. Two of their men were paid 1/.'J per hour, others 9/ per day. There should be a sliding scale.

Mr Ueaney said thej- paid 0/ all round, lieally good men were wor+ii !/'.> per hour, but others were not. To make 10/ a minimum wage would upset trade. There should be a sliding scale. His men worked 47 hours per week, and were paid for 48.

Mr Masefield said if was impossible to arrive at a uniform rate of wrigps in their trade. Home men were worth 10/ per day. but others could only earn $/. If the wages were fixed at 10/, then a number of men would have to walk the streets. A sliding scale was required. He considered S/ would be a fair minimum wage in the trade. Mr Collins supported Mr Maselield's contentions. Mr Fowler said he considered Ihe minimum wage should be 1/ per hour, men. to be paid more according to their ability and energy. He had to compete with imported goods, and the extra 3d. per hour would throw them out of the trade. Mr Nicholls said (hey required in range-making, moulded plates, which did not require the skill of v thoroughly efficient moulder, .lie thought l/.'J ]>er hour would be too much for a man to do that class of work. He considered 1/ per hour a fair minimum wage. Mr Fraser said a good man could always command more than the minimum wage. Mr Price considered that 10/ was a fair wage for a first-class man. He did not care to have middling men in his shop. Below a good man, it wa.s simply a case of paying what he. Was worth. Mr Proud asked how many men there were in the Union who could mould in both sand and loam. Mr McGowan said out of 26 members he knew that about six were abJ e to do both. Mr Proud said he would consider those six alone first class men. Air McGowan said tlrere was practically little loam work done here. He had himself received 10/ a. day at Messrs Price, and also at the Sugar Works. Agricultural implements siiid range-makers in the South paid 1/.) per hour. Mr Proud said he considered S/ rt fair minimum wage. If he had to pay higher wages lie could not compete with continental makers. Coke here was .l:_ ]?/<> per ton, whereas in Meddesborough it was 15/, and they had to compete with articles made there. He paid one man Sf per day. His other wages were £3 and G2 ../. .Mrs. Lucas asked the representatives of the Union whether the bulk of the members were competent men. Mr IMJey said men were put to do the work they were competent lo do. He considered the bulk of the Union men. say 20 out of the ~u. were competent.