ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 66, 18 March 1905, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

.oarln" of the carpenters" and jolnnnte was continued yesterday afterW Arbitration Court, before Mr' ■*>$* Chapman and Messrs Brown and < sljtoi \ntchell architect, con-tinuiug his *' said that the increased cost of = a \ he present time result,d to from the higher rate «f wag.s *»•• Although he admitted that the cost contril.nte.l considerably more rf than the higU« waged. llosser: With rtgar to the. InT° of apprentices, Ho tu-onghc that dtntoring oj b y illl>rf . elasticity iv uiu laws to indenture. I* 1 * iv uue;.".ng tin- case for tinJlr 3a id:-'-The position we take we iio not irorne iv contact Willi Vf are not builders, uud ii buUdwv p |ddfl . el . ent In lift) (J"* Pked "bt'fo:-p the Aibitratlou Court H « cr * °"iaimed that it was unfair to »ien * e flS C builders. Our joiners at that reviving 8/ per day. or 48/ for lißf "1, i or k This, after lu-aruig evl- < T IIOD was the wages uxed by the Court, if fthe award was fixed for two rein. »» 4 . sis mouths after lUe Using of the 6* * flip state of trade Improved, and wo OKSJ2& raised tlip wugw to tf/U por * nt ,n do so At the expiration «rf the s without even being requested by the W'h « were again .itcd tin 1902). We l,ar Jill payititf S/G per day, and after this was the wages fixed HJ fi o Court Some six months after this ll'jf came Into operation, trade having ''.hotter we voluntarily raised the wages nS to 9/. which is the wages we are at paring In most eases. We do not St the tune is opportune to further in- ' .«\va o es. as trade cannot be eouslder"hi'k = On. the two former occasions "Ln we appeared before the Court we Sht our own men,, who gave evidence mi? favour, and who. notwithstanding l -rrlct cross-eiamlnatlon of the Labour "'Sntatlvp. still affirmed that they "ffi work In the faetoiies at a titer rate than work outside for a builder, .J reason being that the work is cleaner I of a lighter nurture, aud also because ft ig copsta.'it. It is not our intention on Hi occasion to bring- the workmen us Xtnesses, except in Ihe case of piece work,,ln but I have here a statement showing L'number of years the men have been Itltl as- T* l ' 3 we will hand In as documentary evidence, and when the timeime* we are P re P ared t0 S° iDtO tne wltIttj box and swear as to the correctness jflt We tnke it, Your Honor, that where men S3 will be seen by our statement, UTe remained in o»r employ, In some rases for 24 years constantly, it is a proof rtat the men are satisfied with the condition of'their employ: and we further claim tbat never on any occasion have our meu cone to us with a grievance: where wages jive been raised, it has been done voluntarily by us, when we considered the state i! trade justified it, and the men did not fcaow they were to get a rise uutil the inmey was put in their hands. The way ire have treated onr men, Your HoDor, we ftlnk proves beyond a shadow of doubt that if the state of trade justified it we ipnld , gladly increase the wages. "With reference to the statement subBitted by the Workers' Union, Mr White took decide to clause 1, considering jt would be quite unworkable in their ase." The number of hours worked in ftdr faetoiies were 47 per week, but the (ompany paid for -IS. The hours were from 7.30 a.m. to 0 p.m. for the lirst live

days of the week, with an hour between noon and 1 p.m. for lun-eh, and from 7.30 jjn. till noou on Saturdays. In the case of the Kauri Timber Company's local traricTi, 265 hands were employed, of which 21' were joiners; the Premier Joinery Company employ 73 hands, of which 17 were joiners; Waitemata Sawmill Company G-i Hands, of which 3 were joiners; II w Smith, 23 hands, of which 7 were joiners'; and Maefclow Bros, employed 40 hands of which 1 was a joiner, so that taking 'the five tains quoted the total number of lands employed was 465, and of which only 49 were joiners. If the Unionist demands were acceded to, 412 hands would Iw coming in, at 7.30, and 41) half an hour later. This we claim would utterly disorganise our business. They took no exception to this simply because they did not work overt/me, and If they did were quite prepared to pay time and a quarter ror it. Clauses I 5, auri li were uot objected to, Dut tney thought there were too many holidays, and tlat thp meu would gladly work on 'some of tlie statutory holidays if it were not tor the restrictions. Clause 7. with reS»S to payment of wageß» was not eb--I«h4 to. aud r-lause 8 they considered I'MSOnnhlo demand, as a man sfiouirj fe allowed tin , hour to' put his in det. Clause U they thought naraiy tair. lie union evidently consider a man inwnjetent or. account of old age or puyfieal defects. We consider," said A)'We, "this cluuse if carried would be tord on the men themselves, as many men ire Incompetent who certainly conl'd not claim that it is through physical defect or old age, and we thing it would bt> very lard to prevent these men from earning a living" With regard to clause 10 he said the Knuri Timber Company way the ply firm which was represented who gave piecework, only four men being employed, Wo being old meu and the other two partlj Invalids. These men could not very sell stick as closely to the work as men m to do wlio are employed by the day. Usnses 11, 12, and 12 he need not touen on; they did uot send men outside the factories to do any work. Clause 14 was considered a fair thing, as mere was no reason why apprentices should be limited lo a yonng country like this. with retard to clause 15, Mr White said. "l J er™iy, 1 have a decided objection to ~ s ; J am not speaking now on behalf « the Kauri Timber Company or or tne kawmillers' Association. l feel satlsnea ™t ranking it compulsory to article an apprentice by deed of indenture has prevented many a boy from learning a trade, >3 to my' own knowledge 1 am fere nre many who will not take an apprentice if they have to bind him. The Mart Timber Company has not taken an apprentice since this indenturing commenced, although we have had numerous •PPllcations. It is a debatable question Vie a ioint stock company can legally indenture an apprentice. From tny own Kperience, aud 1 have had to do witn Who have been indentured and many "Do nave not, and I have found we have Mac the best men of those who were no). 'Wly bound. When a boy is bound, and ? e kn ows you cannot get rid of him. 1 Sjve found cases where it is- very hard <' control them. In the Kauri Timber jompauy our custom was to take a boy on •no treat him in every way as an appren"l? g as he behaved himself. we mi i all the >' ear round for holidays •nu sickness, and increased his wagea hT«, yenr ' lne wa ses we used to pay w; io tive >' ears were as follows: —ti/, Z't i " 16/ ' and -V P er week. lmmer* tej >" °a the expiration of the live years »c raised his wages 1/ per day. At the Sim slx moiuh 3 vre raised It anotner pung, and iv two years from the time isnve years were up he was drawing full *ort? eymen ' a wa S p s. This we found to " ur * .well, au<i under this system we tunitlnni borne eooJ workman. A suggeson Has been uiurle to mc by a gentleman Z? ns had considerable experience in ™»c mntiers. and which I think iv worJ.. 01 J&e Court's consideration. It is C M? 111 be callecl a registration sysleaLr ° Court to us tne wages lor toy If Say, for seveu n-iirx, »ud tin: iLt m obulu a certificate from eaon Mil m as t0 tUe Umo he 11!ld worla-a Siv »•?' and t0 the he had received. 'S'Peglniier worked with mc for one tret n S Which time ho received tne Whnn yi ; ai '' s wages lixed by the Court, rear? ? avi " s J v -'" uld Sf've "him a certificate ; he ' wou 'rt show to his next emni tatiu S tr) at ue had serve<l his nrsri com ' who wouJd P ut uilu °" as a sc ' onfr apprentice, and so It would go hi cp °, ne employer to another, until no h e »»:??" hls seven years, by which time s sani>n £ .' to ,J e a good workman, in eon'Mlefl ? his employment having been Sltn»n i dlfrcr,, »t masters, who would anwH have different systems. This ls ; <»aSti We would ask the Court t0 glve analn ratlon to - blouses 10. 17, IS, u>, with 61 " 6 passed, having been aircnuy lonUtq „ cla "se 21, preference to un"ecesaiw tu ouglit this altogether una »ry. Employers , should be uouna

E%n:r n^e^-- c "cm f noTmem'b ™* who - ere lon officials woiHrt S ? T *. the ™*<^'-nnhad S™y teonbl™ wlt£ d S* ?" neVer awards tUe la ctory owners. often kept mtn ih &ries ', as fac <*>rie3 ployruent Ml Mtnre of outside cm ' cae^wL l,,^ 1 evidence was heard the Mi WntV°Z me( \ nnt " Monday week. statement t, <■ WlSht " S us Co colrect a Ar v at , W!IS In his cvi- , 11 ?k 1 iuforms us that .he did not state that "be would not favour reducfor donl v" m "° V allowin " men to work m-L, ,v, pay - on thp contrary he exPressed himself as decidedly in favour of InftP w £? mands - He also desires us to bY tr^af-™ 8 , 0, ? 180111 for an apprentice to ■lier w n ,T ° ne emP'oye-" to an-u-hnr. ]■ on,y ln casps of emergency h" trade eiDPl ° yer Or went ™«