THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1245, 29 September 1911, Page 4

THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S DISPUTE.

QUESTION OF CLASSIFICATION. DIFFICULT MATTER TO HANDLE. The warehousemen's dispute, about which (he public havo heard a good deni by way ol' petitions, counter-petitions, meetings, and deputations to Ministers, canio for the second timo before the COll- - Commissioner (Mr. P. llally), and a Conciliation Council yesterday. As on tlic previous occasion, the dispute was not really entered upon, the Council being engaged altogether with preliminary differences as to classification of warehouses, and of warehouse workers in tho same or in different establishments, Messrs. .11. 0. Tcwsloy, CI. Magnus, and W. Ferguson were assessors for tho employers on tho Couucil, and Messrs. G. G. Fa.rland, 1!. Simpson, and J. E. Westerby for-(he employees. Mr. \V. A. Greul'ell appeared as agent for the employers, anil Mr. Maddisou as agent for the union. The Commissioner said the last meeting, held a fortnight ago, had been adjourned in order that the parties might, if possible, come to some arrangement concerning tho subdivision of tho dispute into sections.

Mr. Maddison said that tho employees had submitted a subdivision into iiv© classes. These classes overlapped one anothoi, but this was a difficulty which could not be got rid of in this dispute. Mr. Campbell thought a casual glanco at (he union's classification clearly indicated that the Council could not act upon it. For instance, oil merchants aud jewellers were included under the heading "hardware." The employers had made a subdivision which they considered a great deal more practicable. At present they could not accept tho subdivision offered by the union, and they wero lint prepared to carry on tho dispute in its present form. If a deadlock should arise, he thought tho best procodurc would bo to ask the opinion of tho Court on the matter. The following wero tho subdivisions submitted For tho union.—Hardware, soft and fancy goods, general merchandise, drugs and photography, and dairy produce. For tho employers.—Hardware, eyclo and motor, oil, light, fancy goods, stationery, drugs and denial aud photographic appliances, boots and leather goods, general merchandise, lime aud cement, and coal, office appliances, oil and colours, jewellery, furniture, electro-plate, tobacco, electrical appliance?, engineers, carriers, biscuits and confectioncry, dairy product), seeds, nnd produce.

Mr. Maddison said that under tho employers' schelno of classification many of the big firms would come under four or live different sections. A little, overlapping would bo preferable to having single employers under eight or ten different awards. Under tho latter conditions it would be difficult to ascertain what the men ought to be paid. M 1" Grenfeli contended that each branch, night to be cited in a separate dispute. Tho Commissioner (to Mr. Jladdison): Do you say you are willing to accept that classification of the employers?

Mr. Maddison: I am quito willing to accept it, but it will only multiply the work. Mr. Grenfeli: If the union accepts these subdivisions then we ask that separate disputes be created. The Commissioner: With regard to hardware, you ask that the union formulate a fresh dispute?

Mr. Grenfeli: Yes, and for every particular cla=s of employee: Tho Commissioner: What would happen would probably l>e this: We would have the same demands mado in each, subdivision.

Mr, Grenfeli: Yes, but we want the assessors in each to be perfectly representative of tho classes of employers whoso interests are at stake.

The Commissiunei. I do 1101 think we can get much farther Mr. Maddison interrupted, and, quoting from tho Act, said that tho Legislature had anticipated that there would be different classes of employers. The council should take upon itself to decido tho matter.

Tho Commissioner said it wns useless tu refer such technicalities to him. They ought rather to bo referred'to Mr. JustiV.e Sim. He suggested that the council adjourn to discuss tho matter in committee.

After tlio adjournment flic Commissioner said tho council had agreed that it would bo in the interests of all parties if the council could make some recommendation to the• parties to the dfsnute, more especially as to classification. Th» assessors felt that tliey could not go on as tlic.v were at present; and if some classification could not be agreed upon, the matter would have to be referred to the Court in order that the council might have .1 basis an which to work. The disputo was a difficult one to handle, 0110 of the most cx'iiiplicabcd 110 had yet had to do wivh. The Council would do their best to agreo i:oon a classification, but if this w\s not r.f/s#ibl(. (ho ease would have to go to the Court. Tho Council would not deal with wages until the question of classification had been settled. Tho Council then went into committee. When the Council resumed, the Commissioner stated that it had been decided to recommend as follows:—"That the matter be referred back to both employers and employees, with tho following recommendation—That the dispute shall be divided into two sections: First, that dealing with stcremon and packers, and, secondly, wanehouse assistants. Further, that a set of claims shall be made by the applicants in respect to each section; that the claims of each section shall bo heard separately; that the classification of trades as recommended by the council shall bo adopted bv tho parties.'" 'I'he ciaßdfication of trades was reduced from the twenty-five stated by the om--I,levers to sixteen. Tilts parties will, liovr ix- requested to forward to the Commissioner Hicir views 011 the recommendation. If thev do not agree with if. tho matter will be referred to the Court in order to obtain advice and direction as to the course of procedure.