ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15338, 23 July 1915, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

EMPLOYERS' CRITICISM

(special to "thk press.")

AUCKLAND, July 22. Some criticism of the Arbitration Court was indulged jn by members of the Auckland Provincial Employers' Association at the annual meeting. The president, Mr E. A. Craig, eaid that membere had been concerned over the awards given by, the Court since it had resumed the hearing of disputes. Principles which had obtained- for many years had been departed from, whilst now ones had been established. Hβ would mention a few of the most important, points which the Court had given against the employers. In the engineers', dispute the following principles had been established for the first 'time in the history of the Court: —(1) double time was tp be paid for all work done on any holiday; (2) apprentices had been limited to one apprentice to two men; (3) an.employer was com•pelled. to notify' the secretary of the Union when engaging non-union men. In the Merchant Service Guild award was the "astounding principle" that a master with only one mate was to receive a higher rate of pay than a master with two mates, or in other words, the larger the vessel, the greater the responsibility, the smaller the pay. Again, for the first time in the history of' the Court, preference had been granted to masters-and officers. It had always been recognised by the Court that a master of a ship was the direct representative of the owner, and as such should be absolutely free of the influetice or suggestion of compulsory unionism. The instances jjuoted were, concluded Mr Craig, sufficient to show how serious the position was from the employers' point <>f view. Mr W. J. Jaggs, senior vice-president, said the decision of the Court to resume the hearing of disputes had cost employers and .industries dearly. Pnnciplos'which had been laid down by Mr Justice Sim, had been abandoned, and in some awards recently made the Court had taken what he considered retrograde steps. He very much questioned whether the industries would not have been better off under the old conditions of master and man. Evidence now appeared to have very little effect on the decisions of the Court, and he felt that in some cases awards had been made against the weight of evidence. In particular, he instanced the engineers' dispute. The restrictive conditions included in that award would go far to cripple an already languishing mdusQ. A. Coles paid that during a j reconfc trio through New Zealand lie j had heard'many exprcssjors of dissatisfaction with the fH-esetit constitution of j the Court Awards recently given conmany absurdities. In most cases the demands of the workers were outMr Dawes sad the engineers' award mijrht not be given effect to. He understood the ense was to he reopened.