ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 252, 21 October 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

* BUACKSaIITHS* AWARD. , Mr. Rosser, appearing -for,: the Union, 6ought' to' have included under the blacksmiths' award a number of' engineering firms. With-the" exceptionof the Tramway Co:, ail the" firms had. been cited under-the engineers* award. He had nothing to complain of with regard t(» thejgrms,' 107& day -to' all' ■ smiths in theii{observed- the-same-hours, lie ; -urged-that they should be brought under; so that it vrduld not give- a chance for boys to come - into the trade by. any other way 1 than the proper door. The farriere and general smiths' award did not include I strikers. Tie. Tramway Co. bad blackI smiths for work that was not shipsmiths', and he asked for them to be mii included. I Mr C. Grosvenor, for the employers, protested against the. inclusion in the j award of the firms cited. Jt was, he | said, a deliberate attempt to force conditions, upon those firms that - would be 'extremely harrassing and multiply their | Awards. They were already working under, two awards- in connection with I their smiths' work. His Honor: Do they do any. work that comes under : the general--bia'ck-I sthiths' award?— They do no horseshoeing |at all. . * _ . Do they do any blacksmiths' work outi side of ships' work and engineering 1-rr I They do general smiths? work, only, as a secondary matter to their., general'business: I Continuing, Mr G r °S ven or contended that - farriers did:, general sriiiths' work only as secondary to- their farriers' busiiness.. If the engineers were, brought 'under the'blacksmiths' award it would be . impossible for them to eoiriply with" j the preference clause. The: farriersV 'award had a preference clause and the engineers' had" not. The blacksmiths* [award would'further complicate"matters; I because three of the holidays stipulated fell on different days to those under the i engineers' award. | Several witnesses -gave evidence in support of-the employers' contention. ,' Mr. Grosvenor, ori behalf of tbeTritm- , way Company, said* it was" the intention of the' Company" to. be given an award to cover the: whole of their employees, land for that reason he asked that "they l>e not included. The smiths mostly employed uri'der-.the Engineers' award: | and the others, were just engaged' in repairs, etc.. along the road, and it would be very, unfair if they were bound-by particular houra. They did not in any 1 way enter into .competition with other einployerss ' | _ Mr; Roeser said the' principal objection to the TVamway Company: gding free was that while other employers I could not take on hands without apprenticing them, other than journeymen; it was possible for the Company to put ion youths iri firing and turn them out 'unfinished".- tradesmen. In giving a decision his Honor said j that the evidence showed that the engineers cited did'flo> farriers' work. They did geriersl smiths' work, which did riot j come strictly underrtheEngineers'award, .tut according to the .evidence they treat' ed that work sfe (torning. under the Engt- | ncers' award, and paid workers the wages fixed by the Engineers' award. It appeared that there was really no necessity jfor joining them as parties to the Far^ 7riers and General- Smiths', award. So long as they treated that work as under. | the Engineers' award it appeared the I men were really better off. The Union had not niade out a case for joining theiii insder the award. The-provisions in regard to apprentices was different, as also wns the preference clause, and if they jwere made applicable- to the engineers it would' lead to- serious complications: That was an additional reason for refusj ing the application. The application I would be dismissed. , AUCKLAND BEAMSMEN, Mr. Grosvenor Announced that in acfcordance with the. Court's dictum, a con- | ference- hud' been held between the partie* to the Auckland BeamsmenV disI pate,, and-, a- satisfactory agreement had. :,' [-■_ 77