THE OTHER SIDE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1167, 30 June 1911, Page 6

THE OTHER SIDE.

CARPENTERS' CASE; WHAT THE EMPLOYERS SAY. COUNTER DEMANDS. The employers' side of the carpenters' dispute was heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday morning. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and had with him on the bench Messrs. J. A. M'Cullough and W. Scott, representatives of workers and employers .respectively. Mr. J. C. Maddison represented the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters aud Joiners, and th-J case, for the employers was conducted by Mr. W. Grenfcll, secretary of the Wellington Builders' Associa-' tio'n.' Tho ease for the union, which' desired a now award, was heard on the previous.day. The Union Company Again. Further evidence was called by . Mr. Smith on tho question of the exemption of tho Union Steam-Ship Company from the award. . Draycott Birkett,. naral architect, employed by.the Union Steam Ship Company, stated that the only carpentry work iloiio by the company was shipbuilding. Cross-examined: They had sent to the union for ship carpenters, and had been unable to get them. He understood that most of the carpenters they had now were members of the union. Employers' Proposals. Mr. Grenfell then opened the case for the employers. Ho submitted that the union had entirely failed to prove any material chango in the conditions during the last ten years. Hence, in accordance with the decision of the Court in the Gisborne painters' case, the Court would, he suggested, decline to concede to the new demands. Ho hoped the Court' would not recognise as binding on the employers the recommendations of the Conciliation Council of 1909, which had been reported as an agreement of tho parties and made into an award, which was very different from tho old award.. He would now submit the proposals of tho employers. Mr. Maddison submitted that fresh proposals should not be made at this stage. His Honour: It is the practice of this Court to ask the employers to state what they propose, and we don't intend to alter it because'you object. Mr. Grenfell said the proposals of the employers were placed fully before tho Conciliation Council. They hoped their proposals would be applicable to all the building trades, and that the different unions would accept them. In regard to the'reduction of hours to 10 per week, as demanded by the union, "on purely economic grounds." it was a general complaint among the men that work was not constant/ aud that therefore they wero not earning sufficient. Yet they now desired to further limit their opportunities of earning money. If Mr. Maddison's statistics as to earnings and cost of living were correct, the ayerago earnings were ,C 2 ■ 10s. a week, arid the cost of living £3 Ss. a week. It would follow- that the average worker fell behind by £52 a year, and SuOO in the period covered by tho awards. The employers believed that tho Court would save the mcu fromtliem.

solves. The five days' week would be. a calamity to the men. The present minimum wage of Is, 4d. an hour seemed comparatively high. ' " His Honour remarked that the Court had fixed the minimum fit Is, 4Jd. an hour in Auckland. "Enforced Idleness." • ■Sir.' Grenfell went on tp say that the employers wished' to preserve the present rates for overtime. They proposed fewer holidays than in the union's demands. The men themselves chafed under the enforced idleness. The masters did not object to the proposed boundaries in regard to suburban and country work, and they thought it fair to pay the tramway fares of workers-going to suburban work, but' they objected to the provision to make an employer liable to pay tramway fares for workers in his factory. Ho had: no voice in deciding where his employees should live. Tho employers were prepared to pay expenses of workers required to sleep away from home, whether the job was more or less than ten miles from town.

Apprentices or Casual Workers? Some provisions in regard to apprentices iu tho present award, which were to the advantage of tho employers did not appear in the union's demands. These were the provisions' for transferring apprentices and the power to dismiss them. The increase of wages was objected to, but the employers were willing to pay the wages of the 1909 award. The present conditions as to apprentices were intolerable. Tho employers had to pay them for all tiiuo lost, even when an apprentice was injured playing football and incapacitated thereby. Tho boys malingered, and still had to bo paid. ,

His Honour said tho effect of what the employers asked for would bo to. make tho lads casual employees and not apprentices at all. Sir. Grcnfell said tho employers .would be Trilling to alter the clause so os to provide t|iat apprentices need not be paid for time lost through their own default. There was a tendency on the part of the lads to think that they had only to put. in tho five years and then they would Ret the minimum wage. The employers further asked for a new clause to prevent the entrance of union officials on a job during tho absence of tho employer. Friction had arisen from this cause in the past. "Drawing on Imagination." As to preference the employers, whileadmittipg that tho principle had been agreed to, considered that thero was a material difference between the employers granting preference and the Court awarding it. . His Honpur: Was it not in '.ne 1903 award ? Mr. Grcnfell said they recognised it as a foregone conclusion that preference would be awarded, but they desired spine relief as to the method of preference. There had been much trouble over the employment' book, and it was submitted that, if employers were still to be guided by it', it should be kept elsewhere than at tho union office. Employers had repeatedly been stopped or delaved by tho necessity of complying with the preference clause. His Honour: Any employer who says the clause has given him trouble must he drawiug largely on his imagination. Practically all the workers art pipmtcis of the union. How can the preference clause alfect the employers at all? When an employer has 900 unionists to chr-nse from lie has not much to complain rf. All the difficulty could bo yot over by getting tho other liO or 40 men to ioiii tho union.

Mi". Greufell: We think it is far H.e union to secure them ns lncmunrs, and that the employer should not !.e ('ragged into the quarrel between the union end these men. What' the employers svijgcstel was." a clause providing that the employer should only be required ti) five preference when !>, unionist and :i iionunionist applied for work at the same: time, the unionist should have preference. His Honour: That would practically mean no preference at nil. Mr. Grenfell: It is already in one or two awards.

If is Honour: How many employers during the In ft your were brpught it|i ;nd fined for breach of the preference clause? Can yon name a single case? Mr. Greufell admitted that he coold not remember one. His Uonoiir: There is nnt the difficulty on your part, or on the part of those who have instructed you, mainly imaginary? Advice About Preference, Mr. Grenfell said the employers had been compelled to force men into tho union, but (hey had done, so very unwillingly. Me also sai'l tho present clause caused die employer to seek the worker, whereas tho normal thing; was for a man to seek work. lie thought the union would be well advised to abandon Hie prefcrenco claii.-o altogether, and revert to its former practice of admitting only competent men. The union would in (hut way command preference by reason of the fact that tho employers would know that they could depend upon getting a competent man by engaging a unionist. Evidence of Employers. Walter Thompson, builder. Wellington, s-aid that when he was an apprentice lie. worked nine, tours a day.

Saturdays included. His employers lind not complained of the 15 hours' week. At present he employed tcven carpenters, two of wham wcro getting mare (hail the minimum vase—one'four guineas u week and ono £3 I<)<. The general run of carpenters were nat as competent as they used to be. ]le estimated that about 25 per cent, of them wore not capable of earning the minimum wage. He objected to the idea that a man about to leave one employ should bo' given two hours for sharpening his tools for his next employ, lie should liavo kept them sharp for tho mko of his then employment. Ho thought employers should have the right to deduct lime lost by apprentices. He did not like to ' tako apprentices under the present provisions, but thought apprenticeship was necessary .to produce competent journeymen. When the employers formerly consented ta a.preference clause they understood that it" only meant that when' two equally competent men applied for a jnb, and one only ivas a unionist, the employer must choose the unionist. They would make the choice on the job, and not to select a irian from (he union's unemployment book. \ "

To Mr. Maddison: The two men to whom he paid more than tho minimum wage were foremen. Employers usually paid men "grinding time" when discharging them, rather than give them two hours to sharpen theirtools, as this would delay other workers. Forty-hour Week. Alexander Campbell, builder, Welling-■ ton, said he could not carry on business on '10 hours a week. His Honour: You have a 45 hours' week here, but they only have 41 in Auckland and elsewhere. ■ , Witness said all the building trades in Wellington had a 45 hours' week, He paid three foremen and four others more than the minimum wage. Men were usually glad to work overtime, aud it was necessary to keep the work abreast of that of the other trades on the same buildings. Employees had frequently said they would rather have fewer holidays, but they liked to.have several days, together at Christmas. Under present conditions ho did not care to employ apprentices. Making employers liable to pay wages to apprentices while away ill.had deterred them from taking apprentices. He had found work being hindered by union officials coming to a job to collect fees, etc. ■ "Been Through It." William Henry Bennett, builder, Wellington, said men had repeatedly asked to bo allowed to work on Saturday afternoon, when they had been stopped by bad weather during the week, but that was impossible, because he could not afford the overtime rate. His experience about.holidays was that the men wanted to work or not, according to the weather. "In regard 'to the' wages,- and the difficulty of meeting payments, which has been-spoken-of," continued tho witness, "wo have all been through it, and wo know what it i.=.. I, myself, n.s a married man, in Wellington, had to takcfl 10s. a week for twelve months, but 1 did it, and lam still alive. My opportunity is the opportunity of the rest,' and although there are difficulties, I don't see that we can overcome them in this respect." To Mr. Maddison: He had had to force fifty men into the union to comply with the preference clause. When tho clausb was first brought into force, he was eraploying twenty men, and he found that only three of them belonged to the union. When he finished his time as an apprentice the wages of journeymen here were 7s. and Bs. a day, and they wero glad to get it. Mr. Maddison: Was not that because times were particularly bad just then? Witness: Trade was in the sime condition as it has been for the last two years, arid the wages would , have been as low now, if you had'not had the Arbitration Court, :but we are glad'you have had-it. Y'p'ii dori'tknow a good thing when you've got it." This concluded the hearing. The Court will tako time to consider its award.