BONUS ON OVERTIME.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 114, 13 May 1920, Page 5

BONUS ON OVERTIME.

PEIfA&TXES FOR STBUUHO. (IWIOSS AND SECRETARIES 6UED. £1,300 CLAIMED. Aβ interesting caee was opened before -Mr. J. E. 'Wjjece, S.M., yesterday afternoon at the Magistrates Court, being an aftermath of the strike when the LVhnirai Codringjton iwu i**ng fitted up in Auckland for the Hwrice'e Bay farmers. Tihxoe unions and the secretaries were proceeded against and the total penalties asked were £1,200. The actions .were laid by George Henry Liglitfoot, Inspector of Awards, (Mr. Selwyn 'Mays). The first case was against the-Auck-land Iron and Braes Mouldete TJaion, (Mr. A. E. Skelton) a penalty of £200 being claimed under section C of the Industrial Conciliation and. Arbitration Art, 1908. The fallowing- axe the particulars of the said offence: "That the defendant union, during the month of September, 1919, at Auckland, did incite or instigate certain workers, of the eaid ! union employed by the United Repairing Co. Ltd., and certain' workers employed by Messrs Claire and Warner, to become parties to an unlawful stri&e." Similar plaints were laid for like penalties against the Auckland District 'Boilermakers, Iron, Ship Workers and Bridge Builders Union, also Adam Hood Phillips, secretary to such anion, and the Auckland branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineer*, also against tfhe secretary, R. F. Barter.

•Sydney E. Wright, secretary 'to the Auckland Employers Association, was the first wftnese .called. He related that at a conference on April 90, 1919, called at the reaueet of the unions^. it was agreed that the Dunedin award of a basic wage' of 1/7$ per hour, with a .bonus of 2Jd should be adopted. The union representatives later stated that the rcgniationa re overtime bad been Altered without discussion. The employers subsequently learned that bad been done by the Court on its own initiative. 'When the Court eat in Auckland it decided that the bonus was not to be computed in regard to overtime. On August 25 another conference was held, and the Court's interpretation was sought. That was published on April 5, 1919. Three days bier, at a 'further conference, when both Phillip and Barter were present, the latter btated definitely that no overtime would be worked until the Court's interpretations was reversed. * . Oroae-examjjied by- Mr. Skeltbn, wit- , nese said tfhe effect of the Arbitration Court's decision was that the arrangement re bonus w*» reduced by one halfpenny. The employers position was I that the Court (having given ito award there was no need for discussion regarding that matter. Mr. Sketton: Am I correct in suggesting that the men were not very amiably received; in fact one employer said he would see them before he would pay bonus on overtime? Mr. Wright: One luWnfaer did use a Strong expreeeion wben ispeakiing to that effect. It i 3 too long ago for mc to remember the exact worde. : Mr. Skelton: Is it not a. fact that at the sitting of the Arbitration Court, when tibe bonus w»e reduced, the question was not really diecuaeed. , Mr. Wright: evidence was called regarding (the -alteration of overtime from time and a quarter to time and a half. The bonus was not diecussed. The Court made Give that 1/7} per hour, and 2}d bonne would be the scale.

Re-examined by Mr. Mays, witness said be believed the union secretary Mid the men's decision not to work overtime, wae the result of * meeting held. The letter, asking lor * conference, wa* signed in the name of the union and he believed it bore the seal of the union. Harold Mason Warner, of the firm of Claire and Warner, Auckland, stated bis 'firm wae a party to *he various iroarworiter s awards. In Aip repairing there was necessity for- working . overtime. In boiler work, if tfhey did not *»rfc overtime a mill might have to ctoae down for several days and throw a number of men out of work. Witness bad been nine yean an employee and eight yean an employer. Prior to the Admiral Codrington case, there had not been a. general objection to work overtime. Last July the fresh 'bonne arrangements were made. After that there was not a general refusal in his «*op to work overtime. The ftrat indication of tronUe wae eignt or ten days after Judge. .Stringer gave Uβ decision. Witness «aw Mt. Barter outside the gate talking to some of the men. He asked Mr. Barter to take a sensible view of the position. Mr. Barter lepfied that until every other master in Auckland paid bonus on overtime the engineers would not work overtime. His firm had been paying bonus on the overtime prior to that. Witness aekod why men should not work for firms who were, paying bonus on the overtime? Mr. .Barter replied that £he unions had made up their mind that none the allied trades would work overtime until all the mastere paid tonus on overtime. Witneee pointed out that he had urgent work on hand which required to be finished. One rihip *ad been in port over five or six months. His firm was quite prepared to pay bomi* on the overtime. Mr. Barter's reply was final— that they would not work overtime until navment of bonus wae general. At t>hat time hie firm had 120 employed. Not working overtime meant a drop of £450 to £500 in the weekly wages paid. Th»t lasted until January 24, when ac a. result of a conference held in the Trades Ha.ll, it was agreed to pay bonua on overtime* as well as principal. The refitting of tf»e \dmiral 'Codrington cost more like £100.000 than £50,000. The farmers were willing to P»y anything "to get the job finished. At the meeting in the Trades Hall, Messrs.' Lyanar, Savage, M.P., and Parry, M.P., were preaent. The men got back to work promptly,, and the number increased from 120 to about 200. Witnese had not received any refusal from his *nen to work in hie shop until after Mr. Barter's viert. Up to tnat time, the men worked cheerfully enough -but afterwards did not work overtime until af'er the meeting in January.

Mr. Mays put in a copy of a permit from the allied trades, for the men to work overtime. At 5 p.m." further hearing was adjourned until next week.