TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 254, 24 October 1907, Page 5

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

ENGINEERS' DISPUTE. The most contentious clauses in the demands of the Auckland Engineers' Industrial Union are those relating to overtime, payment for night shifts, minimum wages, and the limitation of the number of apprentices. Mr. R. F. Way appeared for the Union, and the employers were represented by Mr. T. Masefield with Mr. C. Grosvenor. In opening the case for the Union Mr. Way said tho Union asked for a different basis of overtime; they wanted time and a quarter for overtime worked to 7 p.m., time and a half for the next two hours, arid double rates after that time. In respect to night shifts the union asked for 2/ extra to be paid, three-consecutive nights to he worked before it could be reckoned a night shift, otherwise overtime rates to be paid. Other demands were an increase in the minimum wage from 1/3 to 1/45 an bonr for first-class engineers; the number of apprentices employed to be limited to one to every three journeymen, all apprentices to be legally, indentured for five years, the wages to begin at 5/ a week, increasing yearly at the rate of • 5/ a week. The usual under rate and preference clauses were also asked to be included in the award. In support of the men's demands evidence was given to the effect that their demands were fair and reasonable, that a minimum wage of I/4J an hour was not excessive, and was warranted by the increased cost of living and the wages paid to other skilled labour. It was also stated that one apprentice to three journeymen was a fair proportion, and that a "greater number, militated against a boy learning the trade. It was stated that in some shops the proportion of apprentices employed our to one journeyman. One witnfes.s ceanidition of engineers,nOwAy^^^y-^'.^^flaait

was thirty years ago in.the matter of ability in workshops and the turning out; of work. Another witness, asked why he apw proved, of the limitation' of apprentices, replied, " Because if. there, isn't there'll Soon be ho room for old men at "all." Mr. Masefleld, in putting the claim of the masters before the Court, said that what they were prepared to accept was as nearly as possible the .old award. ' He considered 10/ a day ample for a mini- - mum wage unless the Court made a minimum of 8/ and a maximum oi 12/. Regarding overtime, the masters practically agreed with the men except as regards holidays. There was' nothing new j in' the night shift clause, and he thought [it was not unfair. Regarding apprentices, he thought the period of indeniEra i should bo six years. Tbe employer farI ther asked that under rate permits should not he issued by the ohairman-of the Conciliation Board, but by the Inspector of Factories or Inspector of Award. They objected to the preference to unionists clause, considering it ; unfair that non-unionists should be -debarred from obtaining work. John Watson, representing Price Brossaid if the men's demands were acceded! to his firm would suffer considerably. The firm had a contract for. something like £80,000 for locomotives, extending over 3 years. That contract" had been accepted on the basis- of the old' award. The employment of apprentices should be in favour of the trade, and the mora apprentices the better. If the. apprentices were not educated;, now the work-t men would get scarce. To Mr. May: So far as he knew there was nothing in his contract with tho Government to provide against an. increase in wages. ' George Fraser said that there wasrrnot much looming up for the engineering trade. The trade could not stand an increase in wages at present. In the. past in slack time his firm had manufactured work to keep the hands going, but if a prohibitive rate of wages were granted they .would have to put men off in slack times. At present their •manufacturing work; amounted to £.10,----000 to £15,000 a year. That work carried very little profit. He thought that apprentices who had just come out pf their time should be permitted' to work for 9 months at, say, 1/- an hour, and for a further 9. months at 1/1 per hour, without the indignity of having to apply, for a, permit to work under rate. . They] must discriminate between, the experienced man , and the youth just out of his time. An .increase in wages would seriously, affect a.. contract for £ 6000 he had entered into with the Auckland Harbour Board, which was based on the old rate of wages. To Mr. May: He agreed that a first* class man was worth" 1/4* an hour. Alexander Burt (A and T..Burt, Ltd); said that if his firm had to pay the wages demanded by the men they would*} have to go out of business.