ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 169, 10 April 1908, Page 11

ARBITRATION ACT.

AN AWARD THAT DID NOT ; SUIT. ' - ( BT TELEGRAPH,—-SPECIAL. CORRESPONDENT.) ;■' Christchurch, Apnl 9 ■• "No Act that was ever passed in New Zealand has been more abused than the Arbitration Act., I, am sorry to say that-it , has'''not been/'respected." 7^ ; :Such.!wasv the opinion, expressed by Mr.- Robert Rainey, t-lia well-known Taitapu farmer, in the cpurso pf .. his ; evidenco ; before the - Conciliation Board - this morning; . Speaking as. a; director of-the ' AYaitapu Dairy Company, Mr. Rainey said ho; was sorry to say that the award under which :. the men employed by. the company were work- . ing was r.ot acting justly; /•'"•' '/ , . J... Thprn : '.pointed-out; that the award ..referred to v/as the outcome of an agreement "Centeredinto .betwecn'tlie employers ..and. eni- , ./ . ployeGs'.'-rahd'' that Mr. Rainey was present • when .tho. agreement was'amved. at. 1 ; ■ ' Mr; Rainey, continuing,, stated that under, tlie award some of:'tho men received more arid. \ Bonieles3 pay than under 'the previous :c6ii.ditions:' 'Tho-injustice/under the", award was . Hhe 'provision for' timo actually', worked'. - A \ man- who started an hour lateivthan 'another worked an hour more, and got paid time'and .a' half, overtime for.it.' The result was' that :. tho mail who started early, was not- in such a ! good' position as he.would have been if ho ' had been getting a weekly, wage. - The operation of the award had. caused friction" between the men and the company, -and they waited on - the directors and asked that, they should . : ; come under the old system .of pay. The , ' Board replied that.they were under.'an award • 1 ; and "could, not interfero with them, 'flic men then - put. ;their ; pcisition to the' directors: "■Supposing -we resign from the Union, would you consider the'matter?"- The directors had replied that it was a big question and theywould certainly consider the matter! They could not, however, break : tho law. The men thereupon sent in their resignations, but wliether. or iiot they had been accepted, lie could not say. . The. Company was now paying tho old. rate: of wages, Ywhich were,' he thought, slightly; in;:excess of. that fixed by '• tho award, but the time worked was kopt in accordance with, the award. The men had . pleasures ' and. recreations,' cricket, . and so forthj and wero able.to arrange among tliem- • selves about, doing, tho work. ; When some wished to go off,, the others pushed the ,work through.?. If: the work was, done; in half tho '. time, the men. got their week's wages, • instead of being' paid ;for .the actual timo' worked, :- as provided for by the award. The men had found ; that the award did not suit them, and thuj. • they could not get away for ■ half a day when they wanted. Tho Company omployed five men, and had wanted to keep them, but some of. them, declared that they would-not : stop if they had to work under tho award. ■ , , - ' Under'. cross-esamiriation by Mr. Thorn Mr.. Rainey stated that ho had opposed tho ■ award when the provisions'were being discussed. He was not aware that'tho Central Dairy Company, during the first "year worked under the award, made a profit of £5500. ■