ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17631, 7 December 1922, Page 12

ARBITRATION COURT.

ENGINEERS' DISPUTE.

The dispute respecting the wages and conditions of work in the metal trades, whioh has, been already before the Arbitration Court in Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin, itu continued at the sittings of the Court in CUristchuroh yesterday. His Honour Mr Justice Fraxer presided, with Mossra W. Scott and M. J. Eeardon, representative of the employers and workers respectivly. ,

The dispute concerns niters and turners, boiieruiaJfers, iionniouiders, metalworkers' assistants, together with related trades, such as eiectrioai engineers, tinsmiths, and sheet metal ■ workers, cycle workers, and motor garage hands. I'he first five classes wore dealt with yesterday. Mr K. F. Barter appeared for "the workers, and ilr F. Cooper lor the employers. Mr Barter, in the course of a long written statement, which he read to the Court, said that the claims put forward by the unions differed very slightly from the existing award. A working week of five days of eight hours caoh had been asked for, because the unions believed that i giving the worker the benefit of a full week-end would promote efficiency. However, agreements had been made in conciliation with the employers in two centres, and as it was the wish of both sides to have the award settled on a Dominion basis, it was desired that the existing award week of 48 hours be adopted in all centres. The iron trades had been working under the 44-hour week for two and a half years, and the workers asked that, no alteration be made. The engineers had not included overtime in their claims, but had made arrangements for a night-shift clause. The reason for this was that they wanted to assist in obtaining work for the unemployed. However, it was proposed that the night shift bo substituted for systematic overtime, and tliat overtime at overtime rates should be retained for break-down work.

With regard to wages, jr r Barter stated that the three unions concerned were asking for the same rotes, except that the moulders wanted Is Kd a day extra, on account of the dirtv nature of (heir work. The wages of engineers were £2 18s 9d a week in 1905, £3 4e 9d in 1914. and £5 2s 5d in I&'2 In Australia in 1921 tradesmen of the same class were awarded £G a week. The rate in England was .£4 17s, and in America £7. There was no slump in the Australian industry, and the employers were able to meet overseas competition, although they were paying nearly £1 «. week more than the New Zealand employers. There was no shirar, in trie .New Zealand trade. Even on the "present basis of wages, the Auckland shops 'had been, able to absorb over 100 out of 227 arrivals from England, besides taking back all men who had returned from the war The employers, however, demanding a reduction from £5 2s 9d a week to £3 17a 4d a. week. The latter, under present conditions, was not a subsistence wage. The argument that the. employers had to meet cr.tside competition, was of little value, because 90 per cent, of the work done in New Zealand was repair work. Mr Barter stated that the workers objected to the introduction of piecework and the premium bonus system. He advanced arguments in support of the claim that certain classes of machinists should be paid rates equal to those of filters. A good deal of further argument, was devoted to the uioportiort of apprentices, and to a nuuber cf technical matters.

Arthur James Rice, secretary of the Domedim branch of the Union, said #hat he did not think, from his experience, most of the fhops did not make for efficiency, owin<* to the inadequacy of the various plants, which in a great many cases were out of date. \Vero it not for the influx of immigrant*, he thought that conditions in Dunedin would be about normal. There were too many apprentices to be properly absorbed: into the industry, with a result that many of them did not have sufficient opportunities to learn employee. The system that the union v/aa advocating had everything to oommend it from the point of view of both employer and employee. The, witness alrongly deprecated the stock catalogue rate clause, which he considered an insult to a venerable craft. He was at a loss to Itnow why it had ever been inserted; it seemed to him that the only reason for it was that the employers desired cheap labour. The clause had very fjrguently been abused. It was a most degrading olause, and every unionist who had worked und-r it condemned it.

Mr Cooper stressed the point that the various Ohristchtirch foundries would be found to be ua up-to-date, having regard to population, etc, as tliose of any place in the world.

His Honor i=add that it was generally acknowledged that owing to the population and the demand, it would not pay to import a certain type of machinery, which -was so expensive that if it were net run almost continuously that it would not pay at all. ' Mr Cooper said it was contended that most of the local shops were over, rather than under, equipped. One had only to look at certain -exhibits at the local exhibition to see that we 'had here some of the best mechanics iu the world, and the work turned out showed that the shops must be very well equipped indeed.

Witness said that he was not talking of every »hop in the country. He quite agreed that some were very well equipped, but others certainly were not. His evidence generally applied mainly to Dunedin. Adam Good Phillip, secretary of the Moulders' Union at Auckland), said that moulders, owing to the skill involved in this trade, were, he considered, entit.ed to more than other sections of the trade. In practically all other parts of the world they got more, while steel moulders got more than others, as was only right. As far as apprentices were concerned, there was no inducement in New Zealand to go to the iron trade

Mr Barter said that neither the Dunedin moulders nor the boiler-makers had been cited by the employers. Mr Cooper, opening the case for the employers, touched on various-points raised by Mr Barter, the majority of which he said would be dealt with in the evidence he inte'nded to cull. The employers' case had been based upon "what there was. in it for the workers, to bring about the most employment." The engineering trade had not come to its present position by ordinary evolution, nor had the present award, which was largely due to tbn war conditions. The employers had granted higher wages and fewer houia because lliey had) thought they could afford it/ and it had not been their fault that success had not been -experienced. As far as agricultural implements were concerned, as an example, in 19-14, a farmer had to give 15261bs of cocksfoot to buy a double-furrow plough; in 1922, he had to give 1750. In 1914 a disc harrow cost him U6olbs, and m 1922, 1937. A drill in 1914 co-t bun 342t!lbs and in 1922, 4625, and) so on through all the various products. The result was that at present prices, satisfactory business could not be done. As far as wa?es were concerned, the employers' demands had been based on continuous production at the factories. They were concerned in showing the maximum amount of wages the industry could pay. On the figures of three firms in Christchuroh which represented one-third of the workers in Canterbury, 35 per cent, less time was worked in 1522 than in 1921. The wages of a skilled woiker were £4 17s 2d, but sp:eadin" the 35 ner cent. l"Ss time over all the workers, he was actually living on £3 3s 2d. The employers' proposal of 47 hours per week at Is 8d meant that instead of earning £3 3s 2d, the worker would recsive £3 18s 4d, andi' unemployment would be greatly relieved. . lid'ar Percival Turner, engineer to the | Ohristchurch Tramway Board, said that the Board desired exemption from the "dirt money" clause. He considered that there should be no limitation of apprentices. The »,n" varic' their work, the better it would for them ultimately. L. L. Cordery, secretary and a director of P. and t>. Duncan, Ltd.. gave evidence an to the depression in re.j-nrd to agricultural implements. A riifc harrow in 1914, he said, cost £ls 17s 8d: in 1922 it cost £25 2s Id. In 1914 the selling price of a doublefurrow plough was £2l 10s: the present indent price, after reducing stocks, etc., was £26 10s 9d. The farmers' produce had'gone up by about 25 per cent., and the farmer could now pay about £27 1.7s Ed. To enable the foundry companies to make 8 per cent, profit, with income tax of 7s 4d in the £, it was necessary to add 12 -3-5 per cent, to the actual cost of making, and therefore the article could not be sold und<~r £% \~ s 6d That left £3 0s 3d to be made up somewhere. Commission to agents and the co«"t of distribution could be paved, on the reduced price, to the extent of 10s 3d, leering £2 10s, which, being divided between and overhead expenses, would mean a reduction in wages of £1 is. Similarly the disc harrow and the; drill the other ' Ptendarf lines of the firm, would be affected Assiim ing a fair output of the throe line., i 0 be half-way between the figures of 1921 and those of 1920, it would be necessary" to le duce wages by 25 per cent., end that wrnld bring the present aw ? rd of 2 S 2Jd dow n ', 0 about 1, M The 1914 «, ri wa , ,„ t ™ and adding 2o per cent, to the ivj<, f , „f ' farmers' hand, tho r mount would be brought up to about. Is SSd. For the veir M.rch Slrt. 1921. (he am ;Wl t oarn-d in the mdi'ffrv m ?\ew Zealand -v a « £t?s m ?*■ > 1922 it vr ? « £261.165. a difference of 'Wii jan cmm-a'.enf of re? T>« r cmf "-rr;.„ , I fir ms mitp'it to .\fnrch 31 «t iqoi (£121.000. nnd toM,rd, 3M . ]9 ,0 ".„„ ™ ; 1914 was IM. ,„ 1921 112. nnd v P to V O .

ai foas cf vz& c-da^aa.

The good Samaritan act these days has to be exercised with perspicacity (observes the Auckland "Star"). A motor-cycle owner was summoned before the Auckland Police Court as a participant in a nillioh-riding breach of the by-laws. He did not appear, but had explained to a constable who »aw him, after his number had been taken, that the young man who was riding at the back of his cycle at the time the constable noticed the pillion-riding, was a stranger to whom he had given a lift on the way. He did not know the name of the man who had got the free ride. The motoTcvcle owner had, therefore, to pay the penalty of the by-law breach which was assessed at 10s and lis costs.