ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17221, 11 August 1921, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

METAL-WORKERS' ASSISTANTS,

Tho sittings of Mia Arbitration Covirt were resumed yesterday afternoon, before his Honour Mr Justice Frazer, and Messrs W. Scott (eraployeaV repjeseniative) and J. McCuilough. (employee' representative), Tho Amalgamated Society of Engineer*' Union (metal wor&era' assistants' sentior.) applied to have tho following brought Tindertho provisions of tie award:— Q. A. Blackmore, Bradley Bros., Calvert and Sons, Copplestono Bros., H. J. Hardinghara, William Harris, Alfred Hollobon, A. White mid Co., H. Vale «nd Co., and H. Plavel, all of Christcrmrch; Crompton and Sons, Oakley and Son, Boyco and Congreve. Objections to being joined to the award wore lodged by Oa&ley end Son and Boyco and Congrovo. Mr S. \V. King -appeared for Uio employees'- union and Mr F. Ooopsr <or the employers. For thi> employers, it -wae submitted that tiler did not employ aoiy metal workers' nasUicnto, and should not therefore bo brought under tho award. Til© Court reserved its decision. GASWORKS EMPLOYEES' AWARD.

The Chriatchurch Gnsworlca Kruplnyeea' Union applied for an amendment of their tiwurd, the ■ Ciiriatohureh Gas, Goal, and) Coke Co., Ltd., l>ein;r named as respondents. Tho Union claimed that tho preiumt aoale of wages did not provide a fair living wage for tho workers engaged an. the industry. The Union quoted section 8 (3) of tho amendment' to tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, IE-20 (No. 76), whdoh states:— Any award or agreement made under- this clause 'shall provide for a. fair wage for the workers engaged in .the industry or nidustrifw concerned." The application was further biisod on "extraordinary circuiustancea." Tho .applicants for bonuses to increase tho minimum rates by 3£d an hiur to hourly workers and Cs fid a iveck to weekly workers.

Mr O. Kenn appeared for the Union and •ilr 11. C. Bishop' for. tbei respondent company. lir Bishop submitted that tho. ajiplication v.-aa out oroV.lor in view of tho Court's previous judgment. Mr ! ltenn said that tho Union's application was for the Gs bonus which, the Court declared workers were entitled to. This was the first application of its Mud in- tbet Dominion. A fair Irvine wage was not provided undor (he award, which bad been before the Gisbome pronouncement was made. If. the latter had bean made, publio earlier, tho workers wou'd not ha-ve been satisfied- with the provisions of the award. The lowest pai-i workers in tho Gas Company's employ were tho meter waterers and syphon pumpers, who received Is Bid an hour, bonus included. iHhor employees, including yardmen, storemeu, general hands, etc., received la 9td per hour, with bonus, or £4 8s 2|d per week. It was not a question a« to what tho employees could exist upon, but what was a. fair living wage. Ho admitted there had been a de-_ orease in, the price of food and clothing-, but lie submitted that this had been- made up for by tho high rent*- prevailing in Chrisichurch. The poorer classes could mate their clothes last longer under necessity,, but they must have food and shelter. AitJiough there was a statute to protsot tenants from landlords who would" r-h&rge a rent excessively high in proportion to the value of the house, Mr Renn considered that such legislation, was largely ineffective, as people must tore shelter. . Tho persori. who could afford to build a- house with Government assistance! was in a very good position so far aa rent was concerned, but the poorer paii classes, who could not nfford to build, had to pay high tfentals "for very indifferent' houses. , Ho submitted to tho Court, a • statement showing that it took £i 3s. per. week to keep a family of two adults and two children. He mad* his calculations ua follows:—Rental of a. 4-roomed house, 265; food. Is per day per person, 28s weekly; gas (lighting end heating), 8s w.cekly; olotning aird miscellaneous, 13s weekly. It.would be seen that no provision was mado for amusements, sickness, old ago. His Honour said that be, did not like tho term "living wage"; he preferred the term "standard wage." To snrrive at a«l accurate estimate of whsV people could actually live they would have to calculate the amount of calorie?necessary for the human system, end; to do tbia they would need, a body of experts. Subsequently, his Honour said that thoy know that the. standafd of a • familyV living: depended! largely 00. the housewife..'.? Whore oaei: man, t whose-;;;w£fev . wua a good ; manager, wefttldl be camfprtaAly off, another man, with «. wag*, whosewife was not so capable, would be hard up. Mr Renn said that, according: to legislation already in force,, it was mandatory for the Court to eee that'the workers' had a fair living wage. Mr Bishop stated that there was no doubt there had been a~ decrease in the price of many of the- commodities of life, and ho quoted instances to show that prices of .food and clothing were falling. In regard to Mr Renn's allowance, of. 6a a. week to a family cf four for gas, Mr Bishop said that the estimate was .excessive. Some yoa.TB ago, when gas was certainly cheaper, he had made investigations, and tad found that 250. 'small cottage occupiers spent only Is lOd a week on gas. The company estimated that a grilter consumed 3600 ft of gas. per annum, ♦ Xing' 1760 ft, end * burner 1400 ft per annum. . It was ladmitted that the price of coal was enormous, but that could not be helped. There was no possibility of. ft reduction eo far .As. the Gas Company was concerned, as the company had to book its orders ahead. In some cases the, contracts were. made rfwehre month* in advance, irrespective of thiei price, a» the company lfad to ensure supplies of gas to its consumers. He had just recently been advised that an advance of 2a 9d -per toa was .to be mado by the State Coal Office. In reply to other statements road© by Mr Kenn, he said that 7J per cent, of the company's employees owned their own. homes, and they were constantly employed. If this application for .an increase were upheld, it would, seriously afieot the economic working of the company. It had already been found necessary to reduce the etaffj and * further reduction -nouid be made neoeseary by an increase m -wages. They oould Mot pass on any mar* to the> public. What the Union was asking fox w<ntld mean an annual increase of from $»00to &lo,qpb to the company, Mr Kenn saidthat there were two v«y; important matters touched upon by Mr Bishop. One was the: amount which ,th* in wage*--would 'coat the company annually, and tho possibility of further unemployment feeing created. ■ : There-wore 100 members in., the Gasworks Employees' Union, and «n Increase of 5s per week would.mean *35 per week, which wa«- c«> sMerably less-per annum tharf the £BOOO to £IO,OOO a yew mentioned by Mr Bishop. Tie possibility of further tineinplopnent being created if the increase were granted had been carefully considered by tha men, and it was admitted that Eome might be dismissed if u» wage* Were iaofeMed. How. ever, the pmuaple wan so big that the unioniete were prepteed to accept such , a risk; .■.'"'■".'

Mr Bishop further stated that there wkm between ISO and ,200 workers w4o tradd V* affected by the increase, end thera wwslso the poMibflity of other branches of trader, employed by the company, being encouraged The Court reserved ite decision.