ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 157, 21 March 1923, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

YESTERDAY’S CASES ’ THE SADDLERS’ DISPUTE In the Arbitration Court yesterday a dispute and two interpretations were dealt with. Mr. Justice Frazer presided, and with him on the bench were Messrs. IV. Scott (employers’ assessor) and H. Hunter (workers’ assessor).

The first case taken was the "Wellington saddlers’ claim for an award, most of the clauses having been settled in the Conciliation Council. Mr. W. A. Grenfell appeared for the employers, and Mr. A. Dyson for tho union.

Mr. Grenfell explained that the differences of opinion were comparatively minor ones, although of importance in some respects. The first clause at issue was that requiring that female stitchers might be employed to do other work in the bagmaking deparnient. In the Auckland award there was a provision similar to the one proposed, and it would be unfair for Wellington to be handicapped with a more stringent clause, considering that it was competing with other centres. It was essential that an employer should have full liberty to cm-, ploy his workers and that no stitcher should be idle. Another clause not. agreed to was the permission to employ apprentices for a year, after'fheir five years had been completed, as improvers, at £2 10s. per week for the first six months, and £3 for the remainder. There were instances where an apprentice had not mastered his trade, and it was advisable for him to obtain further experience. It would be purely voluntary on the part of the apprentice to go on as an improver for a year, and it would be for his benefit to" do so. Another matter was in regard to overtime. In Auckland the rate was time and a quarter, but the men asked for time and a half for the first throe hours and double time thereafter. Since the. latter provision had been in operation in the old award practically no overtime had been worked, and it was only' fair that they should bo put on the same footing as in other centres. With business fluctuating it was unfair that this handicap should be put ■on the business. Another, provision was asked for, that where only one apprentice was kept an additional apprentice should be allowed towards the end of tho first apprentice’s term. Mr. Dyson pointed out that the union’s counter-claims were the present award in tote. Tho suggested clause in regard to female stitchers doing any other work in the department was too wide. The clause in regard to improvers'had been agreed to last year. In regard to overtime, the workers asked that all overtime work should bo paid at the rate of time and a halt for tho first three hours and double time thereafter. He strongly opposed any alteration in those conditions. The men worked a 48-hour week, and HH «extra four hours gave the employers full scope. He did not know why Auckland agreed to time ami a quarter, but Christchurch and Dunedin had time and a half. With 10gard to an additional apprentice, it was not a serious matter, as there were no apprentices working m .Wellington. Tho workers were of opinion that tho clause for what was practical! v a sixth year was not required. His Honour said it might be a good thing for an apprentice to get more experience by another year s work at pay a little less than that of a journeyman —at £3 ss. to £3 15s. a mcc c. There was some such provision in the engineering award. Mr. Dyson said that there a larger wage was provided for —only IJd. less than that of journeymen. _ His Honour said there, yere , stances where a lad could not get sufficient experience'at one shop, and ho could not leave till the end of the> ap prenticeship, so it was not a bad thing to. allow him another year at slightly r Dyson did not insist that. no change should bo made, but he pointed but that the union did not desire to see the standard lowered by. the employment of men at less than jour n6 H?s G Honour said it was pleasing to find the parties had so neatly U' tied the claims, the only difference between them being narrowed down to the bagmaking clause. Judgment was reserved.

WOOL STOREMEN’S AWARD

An application was made for interpretation and amendment of the> V, 00l Storemen’s Award so far as it rG ' a to the rate of payment for work on Saturday afternoon. . Mr B. L. Hammond appeared for the employers, and Mr. H. Dyson for Mr. Hammond explained that tho application was made for an amendmen of the award because the union disputed the employers contention that the award contemplated payment a ordinary overtime rates —time and a third—for Saturday afternoon work. He contended iliat either the award was defective or that an amendment was required for the purpose of living fuller effect te it. The ordinary hours of work (48) were fixgd as between certain hours. In the absence of any express prohibition, work might bo carried on during the whole 24 hours, subject te conditions/laid aown, but theig was no express prohibition of Saturday afternoon work. Certainly an overtime rates, andthat was the position 6 p.m. on Saturdays, aud if Saturday evening work was permissible, why not work in the afternoon ? * Extraordinary overtime rates” were provided for. Work done outside the hours referred to must bo paid for at ordinary overtime rates, and that was the post ’-m in regard to Saturday afternoon, lhe omission to include those hours was an oversight of the Court. If the Court held the view that the award vas not to bo interpreted as implying ordinary overtime rates, then the award was defective in that it did not prescribe the rate of payment for Saturday afternoon work. That being so. the inU u? exclude from its mind the fact that it had adopted a new standard of overtime, and have its decision on the circumstances existing at the time of making tho award. His Honour said it was clear that an amendment of the award would have to be made, and ho agreed with Mr. Hammond that it would have to be. on the lings of a decision as at the time ths award was made four months ago. Mr. Dy.son said that at the present time there was no argument on the point whether work might be done on Saturday afternoon or not. The union was quite willing to wr*' lt on Saturday afternoon at double rates, and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. After detailing the history of tho clause, ho said that at previous meetings with the employers there had been a clear understanding. Latterly ho recognised that the clause s-lioukl ealtered and provision nied" fcr Saturday afternoon work. Hie men were casual workers, and if extra work was required on special occasions and the tnen were brought back to work out of ordinary hours, a special wage should bo paid. His Honour: When tho Court knew

that there had been a difference of opinion in regard to the clause it took the view that there was a defect. Mr. Dyson considered that nothing short of time and-a-half would be fair to men called back to work on Saturday afternoon. Ar, the decision would have a Dominion, application he was anxious that the Court should consider tho point in all its hearings. Mr. Hammond replied that it was pleasing to know that both Mr. Dyson and the Court admitted there was a defect, as then there would have to - be an amendment. In remedying tho; crrdr the Court would have to be con- ( sistent and declare that . Saturday afternoon work should be paid for as ordinary overtime work (time and-a-third). Certain awards had provided for Saturday afternoon work. It was quite plain how the defect had occurred. The old awards had not provided for Saturday afternoon work, and in framing the new aw~>'l that practice had been followed. Court had . simply to take into ~,s. deration the position when the ’d was: made. There being a defect, the Court would have to consider what would have been done when the award was made four months ago.

DRIVERS AND BONUS REDUCTION

Mr. Slaughter, Government. Inspector of Awards, applied for an interpretation of the meaning of overtime rate in the drivers’ award. He was taking this step at the instance of the Forestry Deparment, which, although not bound by the award, was voluntarily conceding award pay and conditions. The question really concerned the bonus. The November pronouncement authorised deduction from “time rates” of so much per hour. Now, in. the drivers’ award, overtime was paid at a fixed rate, and was subject to. bonus deduction. He desired to obtain the Court’s decision on the point. Mr. B. L. Hammond, on behalf of the Wellington master carriers, assured the Court that the employers in the Wellington district were desirous of dissociating themselves from the application. The matter at issue was not one which had arisen between them and the union, and he was instructed to say that had it arisen they would have conceded the union’s view. Although the matter was one of Dominion consequence, he had not had time to consult with employers outside Wellington, and for that reason he. could not speak on their behalf. ......, His Honour admitted that the interpretation suggested by Mr. Slaughter could be taken from tho bonus reduction order, but it was. nd ver intended to apply to overtime, where there was a fined rate as in the present case. The bonus had never been added to the overtime, consequently it should not be deducted. The. point was well take i, and it would be the duty of the Court to make the necessary . alteratic n. so that the overtime rate would not bo liable to bonus reduction.

The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.