ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11589, 21 May 1903, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court sat yesterday. TAKERS" AND FELLMONGEBSV AWARJJ The Court gave its award in the'case j of the Inspector of Factories v Bowron Bros., Wood and Co.. and Welister and Co., in regard to the Tanners' and Fellmongers' award. His Honour slated tha*' the award provided (alter fixing special rat* for certain workers) that all other workers in a tannery over tie age of 21 years should be paid a minimum wago of lo_d per hour. Clause 8 fixed rates for the pelr workers, and stated that all other workers not otherwise specified should bt paid according to their experience and ability. Except in reference to this ciase of work, the Court prescribed that th l ? conditions theretoforo existing —i faEniongeriec should continue as they were. A few weeks after tho award cam© into force the question was raised whether certain men over tho age of 21 years working for the defendants were to be paid 10' d per hour, or such lesser sums as the respective employers might in tSeir discretion be prepared to pay. The Union contended that these men came within the words "other workers in the tannery over the age of 21 years." The employers did not accept this contention. Eventually the matter was referred to the Court, wliich decided that doily, lime pit, and tan yard hands, and ail workers employed in the. tanning or dressing of pelts, were entitled to 10' d per hour, if the individual worker was employed in or about a tannery and was over the age of 21 >-ears. From that time these hands had been paid 10' d pethour. . The present applications were in reepect to the arrears of pay at that rate prior to the date of the decision of toe Court. There were only two questions arising for decision in the'matter:—(l) Were thes-* men employed in or about a tannery; aud (2) W- the matter compromised by the payment of the 10' d per hour from the time the Court gave its decision on the question referred to it by the parties. There was no ground whatever for the sitg- j gestion that the application mado to the Court for its opinion was on the understanding that any omission to pay the men what tftcy were entitled to under clause 5 nf the award, prior to receiving the Court's opinion, was waived. The Court was simply asked whether these men were entitled'to 10' d per hour, and the answer was that they were, if employed in or about a tannery, and were over the age of 21 yraie. 'Regarding the first point, the employers had admitted, by the payment of the men subsequent, to the Court's opinion, that the work which they did wasof this kind, and this was not seriously oonte«tcd by them now. Tiie wording and meaning of the award were not, in the Court's! opinion, open to any other construction than the one the Court had put upon it. In the case of Bowron Bros, the workers referred to, having been admittediy employed in or about the tannery, were clearly within tho class for which 10' d per hour was prescribed nu th© minimum vi'ttßC- , , Messrs Wood and Co. contended that their factoiv was not a tannery, as they did not. tan* hides. They .admitted fanning sheepskins, and in their returns under the Factories Act the work carried on in their factory was, in respect to each operation, described as "tanning." The. award did not exempt Messrs-Wood and Co.'s fnctorv, and its effects were not limited to tanneries where hide, only were tanned. Messrs Wood and Co.'s workers were, therefore, within the class for which 10_d per hour was charged. Messrs Webster and Co. contended that their men were engaged in a fellmongery i of Messrs Hill and Sen, who were not parties to the award. In tho returns made j by the former firm under the Factories Act, J the work was described" as "tanning," and the owners* of the factory were stated .to be Webster and Co. The Court, thought that these men were in tho same position as those of Messrs Bowron Bros. It, was decided that each of the parties wa« liable to psy these men 10£ d per hour, and if they paid to tho Inspector of Factories for the men employed by them prior to September Bth, 1902, the differencies between the moneys actually paid to the men and the lO.d*" per 'hour for the time worked by each man from October Ist, 1901, the Court would adopt the suggestion of the Crown Prosecutor, and inflict no penalty for the breach of the award. The question of costs was -held over. FLOURMTLLERS' DISPUTE. The flourmillers' dispute was taken next. The following statement, agreed to at a conference between the North Canterbury employers and tho Union, was put in:~----(1) Eight continuous hours to constitute a. day's work, but country mills of four sacks j capacity or under to "be allowed to give j employees one hour for meals during i-ie day shift only; (2 and 3) overtime to be at time and" a quarter for first three hours, time and a half for second three, double time after that, and on Sundays and holidays. Head storeman And second stereman for first two hours' overtime to work at ordinary rates, and rate of ove:time then in their case to be as statedExtra, time required for getting up steam for mill to start to be paid for at ordinary rates. (1) Holidays to be New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Prince of 'Wales's Birthday, Sovereign's Birthday, Anniversary Day, Chtistmaa Day, and Boxing Day. * (5) Number of boys or apprentices in any Hounuill not to exceed one to three, or portion of first three, men. In any oatmeal mill proportion not to exceed one to two men. (6) In future, unionists to be engaged in preference to non- unionists. (7) Week's notice on cither gide. (8) Minimum wages to be: -r-Rol'ler-man or shift miller, Is Id per hour; oatmeal and barley miller, Is Id per hour; purifier (the man on purifier and flour-dress-ing floors), 10td per hour; Smutterman in charge of wheat-cleaning machinery, Is per hour; assistant smutterman, lid per hour; kilman, Hd per hour; head storeman, Is Ud per hour"; packerman, 10' d per 'iour; cng-'ne-driveis (a) where the combined cylinders of an engine exceed 200 or over ci-eular inches, the man in charge of such c»«ine to receive Is 3d per hour, &econd and third engine-drivers Is Id per hour; (b) where tho combined cylinders of an j

_ engine are under 200 circular inches, the man in charge to receive Is Id per hour, second and "third engine-drivers Is per hour. Tin- rate-of wages for boys to be-: —First six months 10?, second sis montu-i 12s, third eir months 15s, fourth six montiis 18s fifth six months £1 Is. sixth »ix months £1 <3>, seventh six months £1 7». , ei""hth six months £1 10s, ninth cix months , £1 13s. tenth six months £1 16a. Caretakers or watchmen for seven nights a week of eleven hours to be paid £2 10s per week. All casual labour in store to be paid Is per hour. The South Canterbury members, it was stated, had not been , present at the conference, which agreed to thin Matement. After some discussion as to the advisableness ol a private conference between the parties, tho Union decided to go on with . tho case. The chief matter in dispute was Iho continuous eight hourrf work pro- . vided for in clause 1. His Honour point- , ed out that the Factories Act did not pi-o. . vide for men working longer than five ( hours without a spell for meals. Henry Wood, master miller, stated that . bin firm had never experienced »ay difficulty in working the eight hours' shifts. I J"he men had been allowed to take their k . menlß with them, and they were given a rshort time to eat them. Kichard Allen, master miller, gave similar evidence. He thought the Union's demands were reasonable. . L. V. Bell, employed in a Timaru mill, stated that it would 'be highly inconvenient to relieve a man for an hour for meals, except during the day shift. In the latter, case the work was more laborious end j continuous, and it would be unjust to ask , a man io work for the eight hours without a spell. ,-,'"', William Christmas, employed on the ! night ehift at the. Riccarton mills, thought , the Union'« statement very just. H* had worked for twelve "hours without a meal hour, snatching his meal as he worked. - Thomas Baird (miller), Samuel Wood (engine-driver), and Robert Houston (miller), all gave evidence for the Union, to show that the eight hours* continuous fchift wan-no-hardship,.so long as the men had time to eat their meal while working. Numerous witnesses were then called for the employers, to show that on the day shift the practice asked for would, in the ■ case of many mills, be impracticable. This evidence occupied the "Court all the afternoon, and there js one witness still to call this morning. The ca.se will be resumed at 10.30 a.m. to-day. THE BAKERS' "DISPUTE. The Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon heard argument in the Bakers' dispute- The award, which will ariply to the district within an eight mifo' radius of Cbristi church, including Lyttelton, will be made ilcnown later. The hours and conditions of work of country bakers will be the subject, of a eeparato dispute. •