ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 161, 9 July 1926, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE STONEMASONS' DISPUTE

NEW AWARD SOUGHT

"There is no inducement for a Michael Angelo to come to Auckland on the present rate of wages," was a statement made at a sitting of the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon, when the Auckland stonemasons and monumental masons' dispute was heard. The .Jiion asked for a forty-hour week instead of the present 44-hour week; wages ranging from 2/9 per hour to 4/3, instead of the present range of 1/8 J to 2/3s; a different classification of workers; the variation of the clauses relating to suburban and country work; also that for every 40 hours worked the worker should be credited with 2J hours holiday pay, paid when the next holiday occurred. The employers in a counter-claim asked that provision should be made in the award for the employment of boys to clean up the yards, and go messages.

Case for the Union. On behalf of the union, Mr. N. P. O'Leary said that stonedust was very injurious to the health of men engaged in the trade. The stonemasons and monumental masons were not as fortunate as the miners, as the latter were entitled to a pension if they could prove that they suffered from miners complaint. In regard to holidays he claimed that saints' days should not be a loss to the workers. A man's heart could not be in a holiday that he not paid for. It was something new, but there was no reason why the Court should not depart from a well-worn path. The union called medical evidence to Bhow that stonedust was injurious to health. In reply to Mr. W. S. E. Wright, two medical witnesses stated that they bad not experienced in Auckland any cases of stone workers suffering from dust complaint. Evidence for union was given by W. Vennall, P. Maguire, and H. G. Stalev.

Employers' Attitude. Mr. Wright said that in regard to the hours of work and overtime the union sought to introduce an entirely new departure irom xrbitration practice in New Zealand. They asked for a forty-hour week of five days, as well as payment for holidays for workers on an hourly rate of pay. To agree to such a thing would mean that the principle on which the basic rate on which hourly wages were fixed would be upset. If the claim were entertained the basic rate would require to be reduced. He was opposed to variation of the clauses relating to suburban and country work. In connection with the statement that the men's health was affected it could be shown that the work was t , jne in open sheds. Evidence on behalf of the employers was given by J. Bouskill, W. E. Otter, T. Wilson and T. McNab. The Court reserved its decision.