PLASTERERS' DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 58, 6 September 1916, Page 8

PLASTERERS' DISPUTE

BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT.

The Court of Arbitration was engaged this morning' with the hearing of the Plasterers' dispute. On tho Bench were his Honour Mr. Justice Stringer, Messrs. W. Scott, and J. A. M'Cullough (representatives of the employers and workers respectively).

Mr. E. Kennedy, with Mr. L. M- A. Rearden, appeared for the Plasterers' Union, and Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell for the employers.

Mr. Kennedy said that the principal point in dispute was the matter of wages. The union asked for an increase from Is 7d per hour to Is lOd. The present wage might be reckoned a good one, but owing to loss of time consequent on the casual nature of employment the men made only about £2 10s a week. The conditions consequent on the_ necessity for following the work and waiting for buildings were much worse, than in fixed industries. ' His Honour : These conditions have always prevailed. Mr. Kennedy said that they were getting worse. In the past sixteen years the plasterers' wages had been increased by only Is l^d per week. They were now seeking a reduction in hours from 45 to 44 per week. Other trades, said Mr. Kennedy, had received much greater increases. For instance, the wharf labourers had advanced from Is 3d to Is 8d an hour in seven years.

Other points mentioned in the claims were for aji hour's pay if a man is brought to work and not employed, through no fault of his own. For work done on Sundays, Christmas 'Day, New Year's Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, and Labour Day double time is asked. The.overtime claim was for time and a-half up to 10 p.m., doable time thereafter and on Saturday afternoons. Apprentice rates suggested were:—First year, 10s a week; second year, 15s; third, 255; fourth, 355; fifth, 455. It was proposed that the award should operate within a radius of 100 miles from the G.P.O. at Wellington. Evidence for the union was given by Robert Burton, who gave details of the time.lost over a number of years while waiting for jobs. It amounted to about twelve or thirteen weeks in ■ the year. His average earnings over a period of sixteen years were £3 Is lOd a week, but in 1914 the average was £2 7s lOd, in 1915 £2 9s 2d, and in 1916 £2 14s.

Other witnesses also gave evidence regarding the time lost in waiting for jobs, apart from the unemployment due to wet weather and other causes. Within the . past twelve months work had been more constant, but they had to travel from place to place to obtain it, and their average earnins were improved by country work at a higher rate.

For' the employers, Mr. Grenfell' submitted that the evidence of the men themselves showed that the present wage was sufficiently high. Many ii the witnesses admitted earning £3 a week and over. The present rate compared favourably with other building trade wages, and to increase it would lead to a disturbance of wages in other trades. In Auckland and Christchurch the rate had been Is 6d, and. in Dunedin and Wellington Is 7£d an hour. The employers objected also to the proposal to make the radius for suburban work one mile and a-hiilf and to that portion of the preference clause which required that the employer should notify the union of the engagement of a non-unionist. W. H. Bennett, President of the Builders and Contractors' Association, gave evidence in opposition to the claim, that tiling and laying of cement floors should be the exclusive work of plasterers. Often there was a small piece of tiling to be done in a bnilding, and the contractor should be at liberty to employ any competent man on it, instead of hunting up a plasterer.

Thomas Foley, master plasterer, said that he had about eight plasterers in his employ, who had had constant work for several yeajs.

To Mr. Kennedy": He employed on the average about twenty-five. men. These men lost practically no time on account of wet weather, as' they were moved from job to job. To his Honour: He could not say thact time was not lost from other causes. The trade, like others, was up and down.

Mr. H. Hanlon, on behalf of the Bricklayers' Union, suggested that the question of whether tiling was bricklayers or plasterers' work should be left open.

Mr. Kennedy said, regarding wages, that Dunedin had only recently been brought to the level of Wellington. The Court itself, in the builders' labourers dispute, had recognised that a higher wage should obtain, here. The Court reserved its decision.