CARPENTERS' CLAIMS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 113, 13 May 1921, Page 4

CARPENTERS' CLAIMS

GUILD PROPOSAL ATTACKED

QUESTION OF PREFERENCE \ .CLAUSE.

Argument was heard in the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon in connection with tho carpenters' dispute, details of ( which have already been published in The' Post. Incidentally Mr. Grenfell, representing- the employers, raised the question of whether . the union should .bo granted a preference clause when it was intending to enter into direct competition with the employers under tho guild system. Mr. Singleton, representing- the union, said that far from the.promise that after the war the workers would have a. greater sharo of tho good things of tho world being carried out, the men found their requests for concessions met with a complete block. The creators of wealth must be given 3, greater share of thai wealth. The employers, in their counter-proposals, had offered the . conditidne of the Auckland award, but that would not bo fair to Wellington carpenters. Men in -Wellington were faced with greater expenditure than elsewhere —tho bitter winds called for more firing, the hills forbade tho use of bicycles, and compelled the men to use tho trams —and one big firm was endeavouring to secure the whole of the trade. He urged the/ union's claim to a 40-hour week on the ground that it w.as better that a large number of men- should' bo omployed for .a. few hours than that a few should'be employed for a. great number of hours. Tho employers were well able to *bear the union's demand for higher wages and improved conditions. . Mr. Gronfell, on behalf of the employ-, ers, explained that they were prepared to acoept tho Auckland award as a Dominion award, but they opposed the granting of a preference clause This opposition wae based on the. statement of tlib secretary of the employees' union that tho union had decided to embark on the guild system and carry on an active competition with the average contractors. . .. Mr. W. Scott (employers' assessor): "You will have to: make them partners to their own awards." Mr. Grenfdl maintained that it was wrong for tho union to aak the Court to tie up tho unfortunate employers by the conditions proposed, in tho demands and then, quite unfettered themselves, to enter into competition with, the employers. It would bo an injustice in the. circumstances to hnposo a preference clause. Mr. Singleton maintained that the guild would bo quite apart fro.n the union. It would certainly be built v;-> by the members of the union, but it would not be tWa union, Mr. Grenfell's argument was the same old thing, that at no time should thex worker ever have the opportunity of bettering his conditions. The union had no quarrel with the 'egitimate -builder, hut waited protection from the unscrupulous outsider who jumped into contracting as a side line. The v Court reserved its decision.