ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10012, 16 April 1898, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

Friday, April 15. The Court sat at 10 a.m., wheq the investigation of the industrial dispute in the engineering trade was continued before his Honour Mr Justice Edwards and Messrs H. Thomson and R. Slater constituting the Arbitration Court.

His Honour asked Mr Fraser if he could give the Court the number of union and non-union workers respectively in the engineering trade.

Mr Fraser said they could give information as to the number of union men, but they did not concern themselves with the number of non-unionists.

Mr Booth said it was on evidence that the number of unionists engineers in Christchurch was 66.

Mr Fraser said that members of the Marine Institute which was affiliated to the Union had not been included.

Mr Fraser then called F. Beckett to give evidence as to the work done at Mr Danks , establishment, and Henry Deighton, a turner, who worked for nineteen years in Messrs P. and D. Duncan's establishment.

These witnesses considered there were too many boys employed in the trade, both for their own good and that of the men who worked with them. Mr Fraser pointed out that under jag circumstances eight apprentices would be turned out as journeymen in five years. To find employment in the shep where they were serving it would mean sweeping out the foreman and four men who taught them.

Mr Chalmers was recalled, and in answer to Mr Fraser stated that the proportion of apprentices at the Adding'on workshops was 4 to 1 journeymen. This was under arrangement between the Commissioners and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He did not think there were so many now as 4to 1. This did not include the students of the College coming for training.

Mr Fraser said he did not propose to call any evidence.

His Honour asked Mr Danks whether he wished to ask Mr Beckett any questions as to bis evidence regarding Mr Danks's establishment.

F. Beckett, in reply to Mr Danks, stated that all he did was to take the engine out of the case at the Kaiapoi Clothing Factory and scrape the white lead off it. Any labourer could have done the work. Witness could not say any specific " Marine" work done by Mr Danks. Mr Danks said that when he had any specific engineering work he sent for Beckett, but did not employ him on the ordinary work.

Hie Honour said they would now hear the case for the employers. Was Mr Boo ( th the leader or Mr Scott ?

Mr Booth said they divided the honour. Mr Booth desired Mr Orton to be recalled.

In reply to Mr Booth, Mr Orton said that the number in the union was seventy, and there were sixty-six in Christchuroh and the district. Of these thirty-five or thereabouts were in the Addington Workshops and twenty employed at present in private shops. The number employed in private engineering shops, excluding freezing works, <fee , could not be told accurately now, butJie could get the information. There /woulcflN roughly speaking offhand about seventeen or eighteen employed in the private shops. None of these were employed in cycle shops. There were also no members of the union in cycle shops. There were no union men in shops outside those cited in this dispute. There were no union men in Taylor and Oakley's or Hement's. He could not say how many men there were in the Chriatchurch district eligible for membership of the Union. He was aware that there were skilled men employed in the cycle shops. These shops had not been cited in the .dispute, because the men in' the cycle shops were going to form a union of their own; besides, except Lucas Bros., the shops did nothing but cycle work. He was aware that fine blacksmithing work was done in coach factories. A man capable of doing high class coach smithing was not eligible for membership of their Union. A man leaving ah engineer's shop and going into a coachsmith'B shop would not have to leave his Union. The rate of wages paid in the London district for smiths ranged from 38s to 48s per week. His Honour could not see that the rate of wages paid at home would affect his mind one bit. It did not matter wha'-i was the rate of wages paid in England or in Russia; it could not affect the position here.

Mr Booth pointed oat that it was important to show the rate of wages ruling in England, because they had to compete here as against these manufacturers. The Union were quoting tbe highest paid districts. Hie Honour said if Mr Booth desired to show that the rate of wages varied in different parts of England he would not stop him.

The witness then cited the rates of wages paid in Glasgow, Nottingham, Orantham and Colchester. At the latter the wages of smiths was 30s per week. These rates were for fifty-four hours per week. He could not say whether their Union in England recognised agricultural implement makers.

To Mr Danks—-There were no brass finishers in the Union here.

Mr Booth briefly opened the case for the employers, and said that there was not much to answer. The witnesses had been called to testify as to the rate of wages, bat the witnesses, all being members of the | Union, demanded and received the mi- j nimum wages fixed by the Union. They had not heard the, average rate of wages in the trade. They were, therefore, driven to give evidence as to the effect on the trade if the rate now asked for was conceded. The employers were not asking for a redaction of wages, but were bound to protect themselves, and also for the men in their employ who were not members of the Union. The employers were practically fighting for their lives and for the continuance of the trades which they had carried on, and still hoped to carry on. All that they could do, which was rather a wearisome job, was to call evidence traversing the evidence which had already been given by the other side as to the wages paid, and the effect on the trade if the demands were granted. John Anderson deposed that he was familiar with the demands of the Union. In his shop they worked eight and a half hours for five days and four and a half for one day, makingforty-seven hoars a week ordinarily. Their men had not expressed any dissatisfaction either as to the working hours or as to the wages. Their men had never expressed a desire that the working houre should be reduced to the forty-four hours, nor had any one man expressed dis.ufttiafacUon at wwkjpg and » half

hours. On the contrary it was an arrangement of the men themselves. Some time before 1870 the half - holiday came in and the men expressed their wish to make up the time to near forty-eight hours. It was no hardship for a man to work eight and three-quarter hours in some of the departments, as ir. many cases it only meant watching a tool. It would be impossible for his men to turn out as much work in forty-four hours as in forty-seven hours. In the start of the Province his father, the founder of the firm, who was a working blacksmith, worked twelve hours a day for many days. His objection as an employer to reduce the hours of labour was that they had a large amount of capital invested in machinery, and they would lose the use of this for four hours a week for the fad of the men. If the statement were enforced he would work forty-four hours generally under the ordinary conditions of trade, but would not pay the overtime for four hours as asked by the statement. They had to tender as against the prices paid in England in many cases, as people would nob pay more for the locally manufactured article. It was impossible to get more men ; for instance, they had wanted turners for some time bub could not get them. Witness had not worked out the increase of wages involved in the statement as now asked, but there would be a substantial increase in their wages sheet. This they could not afford to pay, looking at the class of work done by them. He meant they could not pay the increased amount out of profits. They had -great difficulty in getting the present prices. As a matter of fact the works had been carried on for some years solely for the benefit of labour, as the men pot all. The demand was now made on jobbing work without the basis of continuous work. Ifc would be better for fitters for instance who were engaged for a time on ship's work to have continuous work at lower wages on jobbing work. He paid first class men 10s per day, which was now sought to be made the minimum. If they had to increase the price on their work their trade must diminish. His estimate of what a man was worth was his output. The raising of wages must affect the volume of trade done, because it meant the increase of prices to the customer.

Mr Fraser said that they were prepared to omit the foreman in the wages question. v His Honour suggested that the different firms affected by this case should draw up a comparison of the wages now paid and what would be paid under the statement. Mr Booth would undertake to have this prepared. This was now done for the Labour Department and took one of his clerks a fortnight a year to make up the return.

The witness went on to say that if the statement were carried he could not employ a number of men who were now in his works who were not worth 10s per day. He had no recollection of concerted action in 1882 to reduce wages. The witness then went on to say that if the clause with reference to young journeymen were carried out a large number would be out of employment. Labour Day was not now a recogaised holiday in this district. The demand as to the limiting of the number of apprentices was the most illiberal had ever heard of. It must be remembered that here there was the exceptional circumstance of the valuable and excellent School of Engineering, the pupils from which required to get practical training in the shops. There was no limit to the number of boys a foreman could instruct, provided the work and the appliances were there. He thought the colonial apprentices compared very favourably with the English apprentices. He handed in a list of all the apprentices completing their indentures in his establishment, and the positions elsewhere to which they had attained. The trade was certainly not overstocked with first - class men. The employer looked upon the apprentice as more profitable the better work he could do, so that he was pushed on from year to year. In his employ he never knew who was a union .man or a non-union man. His experience would not show him that union men were not more steady than non-unionists. He did not know that unions made them steady. His firm was constantly in competition with the North and South. He knew of New-Zealand contracts for mining machinery which had been let to Victorian firms after tenders had been called for in Christohuroh and Dutiedin. His firm imported some articles of machinery, but had considered the manufacture of them here, but the price of labour prevented them. Take, for instance,' traction engines and other things. In reply to Mr Scott, the witness said that, after getting prices here, orders for an hydraulic press and for boilers for tanneries here had gone to England and Australia. It was a fact that the Auckland agent of Tangye's sent boilers and machinery here. This was one which they would like to get, but could not come near the prices of the English manufacturers, even with the duty. To Mr Waymouth—lt would be quite impossible for freezing companies to comply with the demands of the Union as to fortyfour hours. The machinery must be run continuously, with three shifts of eight hours.

Mr Fraser said that they did not wish to see the freezing companies work only fortyfour hours. The men mast get night shut pay. . Mr Waymouth pointed out that for two out of three weeks the men would have under the statement to be on night shift pay and Sunday pay. The business could not be carried on under the altered conditions as asked for by the unions. To Mr Gilbert Anderson—With regard to the work of the freezing companies, and looking to ■ the perishable nature of the goods, the machinery had to run day and night and Sundays. The factories shut down for two or three months during the year, and their engineers were paid all the time. Witness knew that the manager at Islington was anxious to gee work done locally whenever possible. In answer to Mr Fraser, the witness said the arrangement of work had never been questioned by the men. The witness then went on to refer to the question of apprentices and night shifts, and was further examined by Mr Fraser on various points. The whole question was with the Associated Engineers themselves. If they "worked in j with the employers they would provide the machinery and would be able to develop certain industries, which would afford them constant employment. Let them leave off harrassing the employers and do their best for them, then the employers would do the best for the working men. Mr Fraser said that the Unions were trying their best to meet the employers and work with them. (Laughter.) Mr Orton said that they would be quite j satisfied to lose the four hours difference between the forty-eight hours and the fortyfour hours they wanted to get. Given favourable conditions he could carry out the work of building engines, &c., in competition with Home firms. All local industries had been established in the teeth of such competition.

Mr Waymouth, for the freezing companies, applied that they should be excluded from the award, or, failing that, a special award should be drawn up. He pointed out that the Legislature had specially excepted the freezing companies from the operation of several Acte, such as the Half-Holiday and the Factory Acts, and it was only a mistake, he thought, they were not excepted from this Act.

B. F. Glass, chief engineer of the Belfast Freezing Works, deposed that he had occupied the position for twelve years. The refrigerating engineer under him had bad constant work daring that period. It would be quits impossible for the freezing works to be

carried on under forty-four hoars per week. The men were perfectly satisfied with their wages, and had not asked for a rise. Hβ had no dispute with the men. There was only one refrigerating engineer, a member of a union here. If the statement were carried out it would mean an advance of £1 10s per week in wages to each man in the refrigerating department. This would be an advance of 60 per cent, on the rate of pay. There was very keen compettiion in the frozen meat trade.

Mr Waymouth pointed out that their wagee sheets, exclusive of salaries, amounted to £20,000 per annum. The increase of wages coming on to the largest amount of expenditure would mean a good deal. In reply to Mr Gilbert Anderson, the witness said refrigerating engineering was quite as separate from ordinary engineering as electrical engineering, and the rules of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had nothing to do with it.

In reply to Mr Booth, the witness stated that there were three of the permanent refrigerating staff who had been trained locally. They were fully qualified engineers and well trained. The colonial apprentices seemed to him to be more efficient than the Scottish ones.

Mr Praser said the Union was prepared to exempt one chief engineer in each of the freezing works. In reply to Mr G. Anderson, the witness said that if it were necessary to form a Trades Union amongst refrigerating engineers it should be amongst themselves, apart from the Society of Amalgamated Engineers.

Mr Waymouth intimated this was all the evidence the refrigerating companies intended to call.

J. L. Scott was called and examined by Mr Booth at some length. The Court adjourned shortly after 5 p.nt.