ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10954, 2 May 1901, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

, :— « THE BOOT-MAKING DISPUTE.

I Tho boot-making dispute was resumed at . the Arbitration Court yesterday, befoie Mr Justice Cooper. Mr R. Slater (for tha employees), and Mr S. Brown (for the employers) . Messrs A. H. Cooper, S. C. Brown, and T. Woods appeared for the Unions, and Messrs J. A. Frostick, A. H. Bridger, and G. A. Coles for the employers. No business had been taken on Tuesday afternoon, as Mr Frostick had asked for an adjournment in order that a mutual settlement on some of the disputed points might be oome to. Yesterday Mr Frostick stated that an agreement had been arrived at on all points except those d-ealing with the rough stuff department, the hours of labour, and the minimum wage. The evidence on behalf of the Union, confined to those points still in dispute, was ! continued. Charles Bock, a Wellington henchman, previously working in Sydney and Tasmania, i stated that in the Sydney shops a larger ! quantity of work was given out at a time than in the Wellington shops. The witness detailed the various additional processes to be performed by henchmen in New Zealand as compared with what was done in I Sydney. This would make a difference of nearlyhalf, for"under the Sydney system he could pull up twice as many boots in a day as under the New Zealand system. He worked in Sydney 48 hours iper week, and was considered a man above the average. His average day's work amounted to four to six dozen pairs on good lines, and from seven to eight dozen on inferior lines. Working on piecework he made from £2 10s to £3 per week, but the average man could only make from 35s bo £2 5s per week. The work here was much harder in Wellington than in Sydney, as the quality of the boots was much better. The living was much dearer in Wellington than in Sydney. He considered the workmen here ought to get. £2 10s per week. The manufacturers on the other side were satisfied with a little profit. In reply to Mr Frostick, the witness could not say how he knew that the Sydney manufacturers were content with a little profit. The work was properly prepared in Sydney, and on that account he could pull over more pairs of boobs in a day. John Goodwill, employed at Hannah's factory, Wellington, stated that he had worked also at Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide. Tho average rate of wages in Adelaide after the strike was from £2 to £2 10s, but was regulated hy the Manufacturers' Association. The weekly wage system was now exclusively employed. J'orty-eight hours per week were worked in Ad.laide and Sydney. Larger quantities I of prepared work were given out at a ! time in Melbourne. A man was kept at I work also all the time, and had no run- ! ning about. This increased his average i without a corresponding increase in effort. ' He was getting £2 5s per week in Adelaide. { The cost of living in Sydney, Adelaide, and Melbourne was much lower than in New Zealand. Compared with the Australian colonies, £2 10s was a fair minimum. To Mr Frostick—He could not say whej ther.there was a minimum wags in Sydney. j In Adelaide the manufacturers paid the men according to their value. I To His Honour—He was working on piecework at Wellington, and was averaging about £2 7s per week. Andrew Davie, henchman, employed by Messrs Sargood, Son and Ewen, Dunedin, . stated that the work was generally dealt out > in fairly large quantities, but different methods were employed in different factories. David Chisholm stated that he i was now working at Hannah's, ! Wellington, as henchman. He had previously been working in various factories in Scotland. At one factory in Scotland he received 33s per week of 51 hours. The hours previously had been 53 per week. In New Zealand he was receiving £2 10s per week on piece-work. The 1 Now Zeala.nd workers were every bit as I good as the English ones. The introduction | of machinery had had a bad effect on the health of the workers in Scotland. When the hours were reduced from 53 to 51 per week tlie same amount of work was turned out. His Honour pointed out that there must be a point where the lessening of the number of hours would not leave undiminished the quantity of work done. Continuing, the witn-ss said the minimum wage in Glasgow was 30s per week, but employers used to pay more if the man was worth it. Thomas Hadfield, finisher, employed at the Auckland Co-operative Boot Faetorr, stated that the rough stuff department was formerly under the award. The prevailing hours in Auckland before the last award were forty-five per week. To Mr Frostick—When the forty-five hours' system was in force, nearly all the factories were working on piece work In reply to Mr T. Woods, the witness stated that a number of men were working on weekly wagas for forty-five hours per week. Charles McManus, finisher, employed at Auckland, stated that at his factory he* worked for forty-five hours per week, at a weekly wage of £2 ls 3d. Previously ho worked on piecework, and made on an average 35s per week of forty-five hours. Wlren working full time on piecework, however, he earned from £2 to £3 per week. He considered £2 10s was a fair minimum wage. To Mr Frostick—He was not fully employed now, owing to the slackness of work. Trade was not generally slack in Auckland. j He considered the men were able to earn the ! minimum wage. He thought the average i wage now paid to finishers was less than before the last award, i This concluded the case on behalf of the Union, and his Honour arranged for the emI plovers to open their case at 2 o'clock. Upon the Court resuming at 2 o'clock Mr [ Frostick, in opening the case for the em--1 ployers. said that the employers did not approve the indenturing of apprentices, hut I they considered now that it was expedient j to agree with the Union on this point, alI though it was an injustice to the boys. No other trade had undergone such a revolution , as the boot trade, and before the award of j the Court had run out new conditions would ' arise, which would neoesaitat- another rei ference to the Court. The manufacturers j realised that the average earnings of the • workers were not what trey should be, but this was not the fault of" the employers, and never had the wages been as high as they were to-diay. Probably if every workj man worked harder the would J ba able do pay higher wag..?. The perui- | cious system of piece work was th© chief cause in keeping the wages low. The system was a bad system; the men had too

much liberty, they could come down when they liked and leave when they liked. ' The result was that a number of men had not become thoroughly efficient or fast. Clickers, who were always put upon weekly wages, had' always been paid higher wages. There was one. operation in the rough stuff department—that of solo cutting—which ought to be placed on a footing equal to that of the other departments, and the employers wero willing that this should he done. Referring to .he"minimum wage, Mr Frostick stated that the Union did not appear to realise that it was a minimum of £2 10s they were -asking for. The employ.i r s frequently discriminated among the men "and paid from 55s to £3, according to ability. The raising of the minimum to £2 10s would not make a 40s workman worth any morel The last award was for lOd per hour, and •ho saw no reason why this should not ho continutd. There was one reason why a, 44 hours' system should not prevail. But. the raising of tlie minimum wage to £2 10s, and the shortening of the hours to 44 per week was beyond all rea-son. The crux of the whole matter was "Qui the trade afford to grant these demands*. ' His Honour mentioned that if tho minimum wage were increased it would probably mean that all workers, good or bad, would be levelled up or down to the minimum, and this would do an undesirable thing. Mr Frostick agreed with hi. Honour, and* said that tho manufacturers had always endeavoured to give tbe men the highest wages they could afford. If the manufacturers had the* control of the market matters would bo different, and titey could afford to .pay the* higher wages for tbe shorter period of work. Continuing Mr Frostick said that the boo. arnd shoo trade in New Zealand was a decreasing one, and ho quoted figures to *ho**_*tf that tho trade coidd not stand tho strain thoif was being placed on it. In hin opinion the trade in this colony was in about as tin-.*' healthy a condition as it was possible ifo. j it to be. In 1899 the manufacturers wer_; unable to compete on the basis of ono pair per head of the papulation by 118,000 pairs.! The duty on boots coming into Now Ze_r*j land was 9_d per pair, but in Victoria thai duty on -boots and shoes ranged from 5s pec', pair to ls. If the Court, decided to raisoj the minimum -wage or to lessen tlie number?! of 'hours, it would certainly disorganise tho'; trade. Tho abolition of th. piece work-Jog' was a distinct benefit to the men. Mr Frostick then called evidence. Charles James Ward, manager of tl_3. making, finishing, and rough stuff departments at Skelton, Frostick's factory, stated--that he had -discretionary power to increase a man's wages. In- most cases he did not wait until ho was asked by a man for an increase. He had three men at 60s per week, two of whom wero only twelve months out of their apprenticeships, five at 52s per week, thirteen at 50s per week, eight at 48s, twenty-eight at 445, five o-n the minimum, 40s. There were two apprentices, and four boys in addition. He did not consider tlie minimum would be adopted as the maximum wage, as it would be against the interests of the employers. It would be be .ter to' have good labour at a higher wage than cheap and nasty labour. Since he had been in New Zealand !he had dismissed many men for incompetency, as they could not earn tho 40s. H« did not considtr forty-eight hours too much for a week's work. In America, when he was there, the factories worked for fifty-nine hours, and in England fifty-two hours. Under an unrestricted, system of division of processes, he woidd bo able to reduce the cost of production without lessening the wages of the men. To GMr T. Woods—He hoped the American system would never extend to New Zealand. Gillman Wit—am stated that, as an expert ho represented in Austra-j lasia, the United Shoo Machinery! Company of America. He had no interest an New Zealand at present. The*, Australians had not attained the same pro*' ficiency with machinery as the workers hail in the States. The men should work better in New Zealand than in as the climate was much more suitable. Bertie Arthur Frostick stated (he had kj< oently paid a visit to the Australian colonies. He visited five or six factories iii» Sydney, hut .'business was bad, and ono large manufacturer told him thai, he had never seen the trade aa had. as it was then, ■' The trade in Melbourne was a little better* th_n in Sydney. s George Alexander Coles, an Auckland! manufacturer and vice-president of the New" j Zealand Federated Boot Manufacturers' 1 Association, and president of the Auckland;' branch, stated that nearly every factory ia Auckland paid at the rate of lOd per hour. The condition of the operatives in Auckland under ths weekly wage system _a 4 greatly improved, and he agreed that th_ piecework system had been responsible fo. an increase of inferior workmen. He waj paying his men all he couM afford' undo* existing circumstances. The trade in Auckland was not healthy aa a trade, and was not improving. Throughout the whole of New Zealand he was of opinion that the boot trade was declining. At the present time the l .tailers held about 75 per cent, of imported goods to 25 per cent. of colonial, and in some cases 90 per cent. of imported goods were held. Several of his Dunedin cus.om_rs had explained lately that they had no desire to purchase colonial goods, a,s they were getting a larger profit upon imported goods. His men wero working for forty-eight hours, and if the Court decided that they should only work for forty-four tbsir wages would, "have to be reduced accordingly. To Mr S. C. Brown—He had tried the system of giving out more work at v time, but it 'had made no difference. The largest manufacturers in New Zealand were tho largest importers, but this was from necessity, not from choice. ~/?* tJ the Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.