ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 13032, 17 August 1908, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

. aiPPERSMTEHS’ AWARD. A TEST*CASE. . The Court—His Honor Mr Justice Sim, Mr R, Brown, and Mr J. A. M’Cullongh—resumed their sitting inDnnedin at 10 a-m. to-day to bear the citation of the Inspector' of Factories against Messrs A. and T. Burt, Ltd., Dunedin. The citation, which stated that the respondent firm had failed to pay to competent coppersmiths the rate of wages , (Is 4id per hour) prescribed in the Amalgamated Engineers’ award, involved an interpretation of clauses in the award respecting coppersmiths. , • Mr William -Soobt appeared on behalf of the respondent firm, and stated that so far as wages were concerned the facts of the case were admitted, but the breach of the award was denied. Mr P. Hally, Inspector of Factories, represented the department, and explained that there was really no dispute as regards the actual 'facts stated in the citation. The difference under di spate was * that competent men who were employed on certain work were paid the wages prescribed in the award, and received less than the rate whilst employed in other classes of work. The. real point requiring the Court’s consideration was: Are the respondent firm justified, according to the terms of the award, in paying loss than 1b 4£d per hour to .■ competent coppersmiths employed .on linefNnot enumerated in the award, bat are nevertheless coppersmiths’ work. He bad examined the award very carefully in order to get by the actual terms of the award as regards what work was intended to be included in. and what work was intended to be excluded from, the award. . The respondent firm were probably the largest manufacturers of oopperware in New Zealand, both as regards quantity and variety of output. The men who were interested in the dispute were all members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He believed that it would be -admitted that these men were competent coppersmiths. The question of inoompetency had never been raised against the men. The award was the outcome of a conference between representatives of the workers and employers. Clause 5 of the award stated that “wages for competent engineers in the classes hereinafter mentioned shall be not less than Is per hour.” The clause respecting the claissification of coppersmiths stated that “ a competent coppersmith is a man whose duties are such that he may at any time be called upon! to perform and carry out all marine work, locomotive engine work, stationary engine work, brewery work, and copper-jacketed pan work.” The award therefore simply enumerated the work competent coppersmiths must be able to do. It failed to exclndo any particular class of work at all. It had been contended that men employed on certain classes of work did not come under the award. That work, however, was essentially coppersmiths’ work. At the conference held by the parties, the question was not discussed at all.—(Mr Scott We dispute that; it was discussed.) —lf work, other than what was called high pressure work, were to be excluded from the award, these men would be absolutely disfranchised from obtaining any advantage at all from the award. Moreover, they would not be able to form another union. If portions of their work, considered as coppersmiths’ work, was to be excluded from the award, it would have a disastrous effect on the workers. About one-third of the total output of work would be excluded. Mr Hally then called evidence. Evidence was given by William Gordon. Hubert Baxter, George Hislop, and Francis Craig, coppersmiths employed by the respondent firm at Is 4gd per hour only on work specified in the award, and 10s a day on other work. The making of copper boilers had always been considered coppersmiths’ work. The proportion of wages earned at Is 4Ad per hour was small.

Evidence was also given by John Arthur Brown, member of the firm of J. Methven and Co.

G. Hislop, John Haymes, R. Breen, and Samuel Elston (president of the Engineers’ Society) said they attended the conference when the award was agreed upon, and nothing whatever was said about the class of work now under dispute.

Mr Scott said that the question was a very important matter. Whether there was to be peace or war in connection with the engineers’ award in Dunedin rested upon the decision of the Court, The trouble was the outcome of the union endeavoring to bring all classes of work under the engineers’ award, whether they were governed by the award or not. The question was raised by Mr Burt «at the conference and discussed. The work excluded 'by the respondent firm could not be governed by the engineers’ award, but should be governed by the tinsmiths’ and metal-workers’ assistants’ award. The Court recently made an award in Auckland in connection with the tinsmiths which governed this work. The wages fixed were 10s per day. There were three distinct classes of workers—highly, partially skilled, and unskilled. The first were governed by the engineers’ award, the second by the tinsmiths’ and sheetmetal workers’ award, and the third by the metal-workers’ assistants’ award. The overlapping of work brought up the question of one union treading on the domain of another. One of the Court’s earliest findings by Mr Justice Williams was that the Tailors’ Union could not interfere with the work of the Tailoresses’ Union. Mr Scott went on to say that the fact of the men asking Is 4£d per hour on work which was governed by the tinsmiths’ and other awards would have a detrimental effect on both parties He contended that the firm had not committed a breach of the award by paying IQs a day to competent coppersmiths employed on work which was really governed by other awards. Wm. T. Burt, general manager of the respondent firm, gave evidence, and said that coppersmiths wore only entitled to 11s a day when doing high-pressure work. It was purely an engineering award. If such suggestion as proposed were given, effect to, it would have a far-reaching influence throughout the whole trade. Mr Hally asked that the Court give an interpretation in strict terms of the award, not what was intended to bo included. If there had been omission, the Court could/ rectify it afterwards.

His Honor: The quest-ion in the present case is: What is the moaning of <da.-n«f> 6 in the engineers’ award relating to coppersmiths? Clause 5 provides that the wages to competent journeymen shall be not less than Is 4£d per hour, and danse 6 enumerates the does of men who are intended to be brought under clause 5. The definition of a “ competent coppersmith “ is a man who could perform and carry out all marine work, stationary engine work, brewery work, and copper-jacketed pan work. The question is whether a who is competent to do the work eanme- V rated is entitled to be paid the wages ' fixed by the award, whether he is engaged to do tiie specified work or not We that .the interpretation to be pot on the award is that a worker is only entitled to be paid the wages fixed by the awaml for engineers when he is actually engaged on some of the work specified in the award that is to say, a worker is entitled to fc® paid Is 4£d per hoar when actually engaged on all marine work, stationary engine work, brewery work, .and copperjacketed pan work. In the present csm H is not disputed that the workers m question were paid the award rate wiwn actually engaged on such specified work. We hold that there was no breach of the award, and the application is thetetam dismissed. Mr M'Cullongh has tm to state that he disagrees with tire iadcment. The Court then adjourned until 10 mm. to-morrow.-