ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19467, 14 November 1928, Page 10

ARBITRATION COURT.

- ENGINEERS* AWARD.

The Arbitration Court yesterday, morning sat to hear an application from the employers ot make a comprehensive award in respect of -the engineering, boilermfeking,, moulding, and "metal and after' Consultation agreed to make , such an award except in bo far as the metal workers' assistants are concerned. -■ ■ • . V' '

Mr T. O. Bishop appeared for the employers, Mr R. F. Barter for the Engineers' Federation, Mr-P. E. Warner for. the Boilermakers' Union and- Mr A. Murray for the metal workers' bassistants.

| Mr Bishop paid that there.was>only one matter, to; be decided ■ at"Hhe-mo--ment—Whether- the industry wa&. to be i- carried on under one. comprehensive, j. award, or whether a series of awards would be made as in the paßt,-when the; i Court had decided' that the Concilia-' i tion Council would resume and discuss; 1 the claims in detail. The question of a Dominion award as against local district awards did not ariso in respect ctf engineers, boilermafcers, or moulders, the. awards for these branches of the. trade being now on a Dominion basis, whicp. neither side was seeking to alter. The fabrication of articles from' iron and steel required a series of skilled operations commencing in the pattern shoip and ending in the fitting shop. The • operations were inter-related veriy largely inteirdependent. With ( some exceptions it was the practice of general engineering shops to carry out ail these - operations; in connexion • with one -busi- 4 ness and even in the case of a business ' in which only one operation was'carried 1 ' out as, for instance, a business ®,ak* ing castings only,theinterp'endehce.stillremained since the castings went,on' tosome other shop to be put. through • the " further operations, necessary for. their* completion. With such a degree 'of - in working conditions already exißting under four differentawards there ; appeared to be no Bound f reason why one award shouldl not* bo I made for the whole industry with a. schedule of wages covering each ctess * of workers. : , . Mr Barter pointed out that .there' were a number of unions concerned in; the industry which made it difficult to • make a comprehensive award. In any : case .the. unions >were opposed to the ' proposal. • •••; - Similar views were expressed -by Messrs Warner and Murray. . After a brief retirement the Court/ announced that it had-been decided tomake a comprehensive award in. re: spect of engineering, boiler-making, and moulding branches of the industry, and to agree to the recommendation • that there, should be twelve .Conciliation Council assessors, whose fees should be paid ~by the Governmentfour each from the three branches mentioned, only six assessors, however, 4 ,0 sit on Conciliation TnO Ward, for metal workers' asuistants would not be interfered with and wonid therefore remain as at present. Electrical Workers. . Tho Court also heard an application for a new award from the Electrical Workers' Union, decision being reserved. Compensation Case. A compensation case was heard in which William Webb Buchanan, eleotrical engineer, was plaintiff; and-A. M. Brosnan, motor-car electrician, defendant. Mr F. D. Sargent appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. A. Cnthbert for the defendant. In the statement of claim it was set out that on January 11th, 1928, plainr "tiff, while an apprentice of defendant* was engaged in working on a magneto when a piece of steel flew off and entered his left eye, resulting in the ■ permanent loss of tne use of that ey&.< Since the date of the accident he. received from defendant £47 Sa rip "to April 18th, .1928. He total injury sustained by plaintiff was of such a nature that he was permanently partially incapacitated from work, in consequence : of which he asked (l) for suchcompensation for the injury as the Court t should deem fit and proper; (2) for. a • » declaration of liability of tho defendant

»the