UNIONIST ETHICS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 137, 13 June 1910, Page 7

UNIONIST ETHICS.

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND POINTED ANSWERS IN THE ARBITRATION COURT. An interesting dialogue between his Honour Mr. Justice Sim and Mr. E. ,T. Carey, secretary of the Cooks and Waiters' Union, took place in the Arbitration Court to-day. Mr. Carey was contending for shorter hours for the class of labour he represented, and for more holidays. He cited a case where one employee had worked for 365 day* without a holiday. , His Honour : But when the court was considering your claim for holidays you got a section slipped into an Act of Parliament providing for a half-holiday per week. Why do you ask the court to interfere now? Mr. Carey : We say the court is here to rectify any grievances that may exist. His Honour: The Legislature has dealt with the matter. Why ask the court to interfere with legislation? Mr. Carey said the unions would be glad if both the court and the Legislature granted them concessions. His Honour : What is the goal at which you aim? Is it all play and no work? When is there going to be peace? Mr. Carey: When the hotel- worker is treated like other workers. His Honour : What limit do you fluggest? When will your unions cease their labours ? Mr. Carey : We have considered that matter. We will cease asking for ahorter hours when the week is fixed at 48 hours for males and 42 for females. His Honour: What minimum wage? Mr. Carey: We have never consid.ered. We may say what the minimum wage is«to be later. His Honour : Ac hours go down ar» wages to go up? „ , Mr. Carey : I don't say that. I claim that a man working 48 hours per week and a woman working 42 should be paid a living wage. That wage"Bhould maintain a man and >his family. At .present we are only asking for a week of 56 hours for males and 52 for femaleß. His Honour : Thul as only a step towards your ultimate goal,? . Mr. Carey: Yee. , His Honour: You may y6t ask for a week of 40 'hours. Mr. Cai-ey : If every man worked 36 hours per week, it would probably create all the -wealth that is necessary. FRESH APPLICATIONS. , His Honour lfchen rofejred to the principle the court had laid down in tho Gisborne • painters' dispute regarding, applications for new awards. Iv thatcase ithe court made it clear that the party applying ior a new award had to show that conditions bad varied since the old award had been made, -otherwise the court would not •entertain the requested variations. Mr. Carey said this was not a doublebarrelled claim. His Honour said it was the union's third application to the court. In thin instance the union, bearing in mind tha Gisborne precedent, would have to show that the court was hopelessly wrong in 1907. Could the union cTo that ? Mr. Carey eaid the union would sho\ij that married men wore unable to keejt themselves. COURT INDICTED. / Proceeding, Mr. Carey stated thai every endeavour was made by unions nowadays to avoid bringing oas.es before, the Arbitration Court. As a matter of fact, very few unions would come before the -court. If they could not get their grievances remedied before the Conciliation Council, and obtain the concessions they desired, they would give way. With all due respect, he said there was a feeling amongst the unions that tha court had not that sympathy with them which it might have. He went further, and could say that the union in this case had been taunted by the employers with the statement that if it went to tha court it would get nothing. In the faco of that, however, the union was befora the court. They believed they .could §how that conditions should he altered. His Honour said that if that was so they brought themselves within the rula laid down in the Gisborne case previously referred to. His Honour here read the rule laid down. COURT NOT A MACHINE. ; Answering a remark A>y Mr. .-Carey, his Honour said : ""Some workers 6eem to regard the Arbitration Court us a machine for eternally reducing hours and eternally increasing wages. That is nofc the function of the court. It is here to tear bona fide industrial disputes." • Mr. Carey : "Few unions are now asking for a reduction of hours." Proceeding, he declared that he would show that there had been on increase in tha price of commodities, and he. hoped to be able to show that 65 hours per work for women workers wa6 not tolerable m this country. COURT AND THE LEGISLATURE. His Honour : Would it not be very much more satisfactory to get the Legislature to fix the hours? Mr. Carey : When the Legislature did fix the hours at 52 under the Shops and Offices Act the court fixed those to be worked iv saloons {under the Act) at 65 — an increase of 13 on that fixed by Parliament. Hie Honour said that it was no doubt the case that if the court had reduced the hours it would also have been obliged to reduce wages. The employer had to have some profit. Mr. Carey : When the Arbitration Court lay* down the number of hours that are to be worked in a particular industry, it practically frames a piceo of legislation. His Honour said that in "making laws" it was doing so in the same way that a county council would. Mr. Carey said that tbat being so, the court was entitled to take into consideration the awards made m other countries. In Australia the wages wore much higher. The Federal Arbitration Court had obviously gone on the lines of framing a living wage for the unskilled mea in this trade, and then arranged for the wages of the skilled tradesmen. PREFERENCE. ' After this, the question of preferenco was introduced into the discussion. Mr. Carey said the' union had a grievance against the court in this respect. At one time, under preference, the union had - ' 880 members,. Now, af^er having put 2000 men tluougli its books, its mem- | bership had dwindled to 200. Tina after the preference clause had been revoked by the court. These 200 men kept the union going, and were responsible for any benefits non-uniom&ts in the trade enjoyed. Under the circumstances, it was not to be expected that they were going on for ever and ever like this. His Honour said that under pref unites previously dozens and dozens of ca&ea fiad been brought agamM employers where they had simply tumbled iu^o error through ignorance. For that rea- ' son the court considered it advisable in- . *\

the interests of peace to remove the cause of the trouble. - Mr. Carey : To follow that to ite logical conclusion, yonr Honour, all the employers have to do is to commit breaches, aud in time get rid of any preference clause. His Honour : My opinion at the time was that the preference clause had been worked to death. The hearing of the dispute was then proceeded with. ' ]