ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 18, 21 July 1900, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE COACHWORKERS' CASE. The Coachworkers' Union brought up its demands before the Court this morning. The Union was represented by Messrs. W. Cope (President) and Y. Bernsten (Vice-President). The employers present were Messrs. H. Hurrell, Robert Black, John Fitchefct, A. Williams, and C. E. Mitchell. Mr. Cope handed in a letter from the Secretary of the Master Coachmakers' Association, which stated that the Association agreed with the recommendations of the Conciliation Bof.rd, with the exception of the clause referring to the hour of starting. As it was found that the Association was not registered as a Union, it was not before the Court, and the employers present indicated that they would oppose the demands before the Court. Mr. Cope asked the Court to allow him to put in evidence taken before the Board, but Mr. Hurrell and the other employers objected. On the President asking Mr. Cope to proceed with his cose, the latter said that the Union had depended upon the letter received from the Association, and had not subpoenaed any witnesses, and he was not prepared to make any statement. Mr. Black said the only points really in dispute were the hours of starting work and the rate of wage for journeymen (Is 3d per hour). The employers also wanted to have improvers classified, and an increase of the proportion of apprentices (one boy to three men). Provision for assessing the wages^of incompetent men was also asked foi*. The other employers agreed with the statement made by Mr. Black. The President of the Court (Mr. Justice Martin) said that the Masters' Association had entirely misled the Union by sending in a letter which had caused the Union not to bring forward evidence. Now the employers had opposed several of the clauses which the Union underI stood they agreed to. Mr. Hurrell said the masters had approached the Union, and had failed to get the satisfaction they wanted. Therefore they had come before the Court. He would prefer to go through the whole case again. The Union must have known that employers would oppose Jfcs demands before the Court. Mr. Hurrell then addressed the Court along similar lines to those followed by him when he conducted^ the case for the employers before the Conciliation Board. During a discussion, his Honour said the incompetent workmen phase of labour had loomed large during the Court's sittings in various parts of the colony. It had so impressed itself upon the Court that the members had refused to recognise a class known as improvers. Masters must undertake to -teach apprentices their trade.' The system which allowed boys to be engaged without an indenture was a bad one, and -resulted in the production of incompetent workmen. Mr. Black also addressed the Court, dealing particularly with the apprentice find improver question. He thought the Court should give- employers power to employ an apprentice as an improver for two years after lac had finished his term of apprenticeship. Mr. Cope then addressed the Court on behalf of the Union, and intimated that he would call evidence on Monday. In answer to his Honour, Mr. Cope said that the evidence would only confirm hi.« own statement*. His Honour said that such confirmation was unnecessary. After a further general discussion, the case concluded at 1 o'clock, both sides deciding not to call evidence. Decision was reserved. The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning, when the painter's and decorators and the matchmakers' cases will be taken."