CONCILIATION COUNCIL

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 204, 29 August 1910, Page 2

CONCILIATION COUNCIL

DISPUTE IX THE PLUMBIXG TEADE The Conciliation Council sat this morning in the Supreme Court buildings for j the purpose of going into the dispute in j the plumbing trade. The new conditions | submitted by the Union of Employees • asked for several concessions, including i increased wages for apprentices. Clause , 13 reads: "Piecework or sub-letting shall ] not lie permitted, nor shall employers or | journeymen contract for, execute, or j supervise labour-only work." j Mr. T. Harle Giles, Conciliation Com- | missioncr. presided. The assessors for tue employees were Messrs. A. J. Tattersal!. A. li. Hynes, and \V. ifcDuil, and for the employers, Messrs. A. Burtt, jun., T. Courtney, and A. Letham. Mr. Clark conducted the case for the employees, and Mr. E. Tudehope for the Union of Employers. Mr. C. Grosvenor appeared for the Auckland City Council, Auckland Harbour Board. Auckland Gas Company, Colonial Sugar Kenning Company, and the Transcendent Acetylene Contracting Company. Mr. Koch asked that the United Repairing Company be exempted, as it only j existed for the purpose of doing repairing j •work to steamers for the Northern and j the Union S.S. Companies. They were j quite content to pay the fixed rates, but j as steamers must be repaired at all hours, it did not wish to be compelled to pay the overtime rates demanded. Decision was reserved. Nicholls Bros, asked to be exempted on the ground that they did no plumbing, and did not employ plumbers. The Commissioner said people should not be cited unless the applicant were 6ure the person cited did work. Mr. Grosvenor said the union had mistaken the firm. Kicholls Bros, were, therefore, struck out. Mr. Baddiley pointed out that a number of those city lived outside a 10-mile radius of Auckland. Mr. Giles said that all carrying, on plumbing in the Auckland district were cited. Mr. Goldwater asked for the Lux Light Company to be exempted, as they gave the majority of their fitting work to a master plumber. If a lamp went wrong, the company did not cater even to repair it. Mr. Clark claimed that gasfitting was a kindred trade of plumbing. Mr. Goldwater said if necessary the company would give all its plumbing ■work out. Mr. Giles said so long as the Company did nothing to bring them under tiie award, they would not be affected. 2J>. Clark said the names had been submitted to the Employers' Union, and xeturned without any names being struck out. Mr. Goldwater said an ordinary plumber would be no use until he was trained to handle the lamps. Their Company was simply a lamp erector. Mr. Tudehope said the Master Plumbers' Union took no responsibility for the list of persons cited. They thought the Union of Employees knew who did plumbing. Mr. Giles thought it would be wise for the employers to take some interest in who was cited. The Council reserved decision in this case. Mr. Groevenor claimed exemption for the City Council- on the ground that it employed no plumbers. Mr. Clark said he saw a man employed by the City Council putting up spouting at the Domain. Mr. Grosvenor also asked that tha Gas Company be exempted in so far as it relates to employees engaged as gaefilters. He pointed out that. a gasfitter need not be a plumber. Mr. Grosvenor also pointed out that the Employees' Union had refused to admit gasfitters ac plumbers. He only asked for' partial exemption a≤ sar as solely gasiitting was concerned. , Mr. Clark said employers were under | a disadvantage in that it would cost 3/- if a master plumber sent a man to put • on a-couple of gas niantlee, j whereas the Gas Company did the work at its own cost, making its profit out of the sale of the gas. Mr. Grosveuor asked that the Transcendant Acetylene Gas Company be exempted, as it was a special work, and not really appertaining t-o the plumbing , (business. It was country work pure and simple. - C. Mr. Grosvenor also asked partial exemption for the Harbour' Board the same as in the Engineers' award. The Board was ready to pay the wages fixed upon, and be bound by the preference clause. Mr. Tudehope pointed out that if ■clause 10 was carried, the Board would not be able to employ plumbers. It lead: "journeyman plumbers shall work only for recognised employers, namely, an employer or firm which carries on a legitimate plumbing business and its kindred trades in a place registered under the Factories' Act." It was decided to cail evidence in the case of the JElaxbour Board, City Council, -Gas Company, and reserve decisions."for the present in the cases for 'which exemption was paid. Mr. Fowler said lie was prepared to pay the rates of the award, but did not wish to be hound by the hours. He worked now under five awards, and his •hours were 47 a week. He paid his plumbers full wages for the 47 hours. Mr. Clark said Mr. Fowler's men were not members of the union. Mr. Fowler said as one had been with him 30 years and another 20 years, perhaps they saw no Teason to join the union. Mr. Clark said the union had the expense of bringing the|e cases, and the men benefited. It was only fair they should join the "union. Mr. Fowler said it was very inconvenient to have a place working under several awards. Mr. Clark said he knew Mr. Fowler had committed a breach of the award at a quarter to .S o'clock, but now they asked that all plumbers should start at S a.m. Other firms had to work under a number of awards like Mr. Fowler had to. Mr. Tudehope said tne employers did not object to Mr. Fowler's application. Decision was reserved in this case. Mr. W. Craig said he was one who represented the "others." He objected to clause 2. He did not think the members of the union were entitled to charge for meal hours, excepting at overtime. Mr. Clark said Mr. Craig could refuse to pay men for the time they were eating their meals. In connection with repairs to the Kaipara, members of the union claimed pay fox meal times. Mr. Giles: Then they had you, that's all. Mt Craig said te could produce his time-sheet. Mr Clark advised i 8& Craig to take action to recover that money, as it was a breach of tKe award, if as stated. Mr Craig said the employer was nobody now. He had simply got to find I the money on Saturday and mind his own business about everything. He also

objected to another clause which, lie said, teuded to compel him to either leave the trade, or join the Union of JSmployers. Mr Giles said no matter what decision was agreed upon at the Council, Mr Craig bad the right to raise these points iat tne Arbitration Court. Mr Craig said he intended to adopt that course. He also claimed that two ! hours' notice of intention to leave a I job was not sufficient. He suggested i that four hours' notice bo given. He did not object to the wages asked for I a proper man. The trouble was that no j special qualification was required for a man to join the Union. He could proI duee a carpenter who put on an iron roqf better than any plumber in Auckland. .Mr Baddii-ey referred to the oVeTtTEe award. He thought an hours' grace after 5 p-m., at the ordinary rate of pay, was sufficient. Another point was clause 3, ' re carrying tools. At present if a man finished a job at Mt. Eden, and carried his tools home, he had to 'be paid for hi= time going home, also for bringing tools "oack to the shop in the morning. He thought as the man had to go home, he should not be paid for it. He considered that the most unfair thing ever ! put in <in award. He considered there I should be a graded scale of wages, ac- ! cording to the class of work to be done. lAs to notice, he believed when men were ! paid by the hour, trey should be dismissed at the end of the hour if desired, and just the same he wanted no notice when a man was leaving him. He also objected to men being paul for travelling at night time to a job in the country. Mr Clark said it was not right for a man after a day's work, being sent at night to a jo ! b in the country, and not get paid for time when travelling. He also claimed the right of an employer to be able to send a man at the Union rate of ■wages to do work ior a man who had purchased the material. He agreed that 32s Gd was a fair wage for an apprentice a-t the end of liis term, 'but objected to an increase to 40s per week, which was only abont ISs below a journeyman's pay. He also objected to giving apprentices two half days a week. Plumbers could go to the technical school in the evening. Mr Baddiley said he would as soon employ a Union as a non-Union man, but he objected to the preference clause, in cases where the unionist was not to good as the non-unionist. Mt Clark said if every man was a Unionist, it would not make any difference to the employer, he could still select the one that suited him best. Mr Baddiley objected to forcing people into any Union. He also objected to increasing the scope of the award to the whole Northern district. He 'believed in letting: the local man have his own work in his own district. The Conference then went into committee.