PLUMBERS’ DEMANDS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 191, 8 May 1924, Page 5

PLUMBERS’ DEMANDS

DOMINION AWARD SOUGHT CONCILIATION COUNCIL HEARING The claims cf plumbers for a new Dominion award were considered before the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. W. Newton) yesterday. The assessors were: For the unions, Messrs. 11. Thompson and F. E. Haarridgo (Wellington), E. Renn and C. N. Watson (Christchurch), C. Provan (Invercargill), J. IV. C. Bolton (Dunedin). For the employers, Messrs. W. C. Prime (Christchurch), A. E. Wells and W. Judd (Wellington), J. S. Douglas ((Dunedin), and W. C. Large (Christ--1 church). Mr. It. C. Bishop oppeared on behalf ot I the Christchurch Gas Co. and applied for the exemption provided in the existI ing award. Mr. J. J. Kennedy made la similar application on behalf of the -Wellington Gas Co. After some discussion it was decided to agree to the first paragraph of the exemption clause, exempting work up to the meter, and to refer the other two paragraphs to the Court. Mr. Bishop notified that he would later take steps to have all employees of the Gas Company included in the gas workers’ award. Mr. F. V. Sanderson, on behalf of the freezing companies of New Zealand, aprplied for exemption from the award. Their men did no outside work, and were not in competition with other emiployers. They had no clbiectbn to wages being the same; indeed, that was provided in their own award. Mr. Turner applied for exemption on behalf of the Wellington Harbour Board, which employed two permanent and hve casual plumbers. The application was referred to the Court. Mr. G. H. Norman presented certain counter-proposals, and applied for exemption on behalf of the Union S.S. Co. for the Otago district. Ho urged that the company were not in competition with other employer*. Mr. Thompson said he would agree to the proposals, provided the meal allowance was increased to is. 6d., and fares to workers at Port Chalmers were paid both ways. Tne application was deferred. The unions claimed a 40-hour week, 3s. per hour wages for plumbers and gasfitters, and Is. per day extra for the worker responsible for carrying out tne work: overtime at double rates, apprentices’ wages ranging from 15s. per week in the first year to J&3 10s. in the sixth year; piecework to be prohibited; 2s 6d per week to be paid for bicycles used within 1J miles radius, id. per mile beyond that distance, Is. Gd. per day extra to be paid for work on boiler, hot-water, or drain work; 3d. per hour extra for demolition, charcoal or pumice work; Is. 6d. per day extra on ships’ dirty n’ork or bo’snn’s chair worlk; and Is. 6d. per meal for workers on overtime after 6 p.m. The counter-proposals provided for a 41-hour week; time<md-a-half for overtime; double rates for the dav after working all day and night; double time for work on Sundays or holidays; wages to be 2s. lid. for registered plumbers or gasfitters, and 2s. for other journeymen; bicycles used in work to be paid for at Id. per hour; ships’ dirty work or dirty repair work, Is. per day extra; double rates for heating work; no piecework; and apprentice provisions to bo according to the Court’s order. The detailed claims wore then considered. Mr. Prime said emphatically that there was not the slightest chance of the employers agreeing to a five-day week. Mr. Douglas contended that the proposal would increase the cost of . living, involving tho payment of overtime. Mr. Renn said that the question was a political matter as well as an industrialone, for it was one of the planks of the Labour Party's platform. Mr. Harridge said ho was not optimistic enough to believe that they were going to agree upon a 40-hours’ week; but, despite opposition from employers, many of the trades and occupations had bad their hours considerably reduced of late years. Mr. R. C. Bishop considered that it would he very awkward for gas companies to have to shut down on repair work on .Saturdays, which was tho busiest day in the week for that class of work. The question of hours was referred to the Court. On the question of wages. Mr. Thompson said they did not intend to entertain anv proposal for differentiation. Mr. Judd said that there'was no incentive to qualify if tho same wages were paid to all. The council adjourned for half an hour to consider the question of wages. On resuming, Mr. Primo offered to withdraw the claim for differential rates, on condition that an agreement was nerved at on the rate. Mr. Thompson ottered to accent 2s. 3d. per hour (instead of. 3s. claimed) and pointed out that the painters had recently been granted 2s. 2d. per hour. Mr. Prime said that the einp.oyers would not go beyond 2s. IM., and would prefer, if more than that, was to he conceded, that tho Court should take the responsibility of fixing the aniount. Mr. Douglas was prepared to fix the rate at 2s. 2d., although he hrtd been instructed to adhere to 2s and -s. lad. If his proposal was agreed to he .would be willing to recommend his union to give an advance on that to. a registered man. The further consideration ot wages was postponed until the otnei clauses were agreed, to. . . The following special provisions applying to the Union Steam Ship Company were agreed toJourneyman and apprentices engaged at Port Chalmers sent to work at Dunedin to receive then fares and time spent in travelling at ordinary rates; Is. 6d. per meal to be paid when men are detained fol overtime and when thev are not notified the dav before that thev are required to work in. Dunedin; journeymen or apprentices engaged at Dunedm or Port Chalmers, to be employed at other ports to be conveyed to and fro free of once during the continuance of the work, time occupied in travelling during working hours or on Sundays between 8 a in. and 5 P.m. to be paid for at ordinary rates; journeymen or apprentices "n’king at outports to be provided with suitable board and lodging. Overtime was fixed at time and a halt from 5 to 9 P-m„ double time from J pm. to 8 a.m., if worked continuously, and time and a half from <1 a.m. to 8 a m if not worked continuously. The hours of work were fixed at 1-1 per week.