ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 15027, 8 November 1912, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

DUNEDIN SITTINGS. j The Arbitration Court—His Honor Mr Justice Sim, president, Mr W. Scott, cmplovers' representative, and Mr J. R.. M'Culiough, workers' • representative— ?com-. meneed their quarterly sitting in Dunedin this morning at the Magistrate's Court. COMPENSATION CASES. Ijovcll v. Urquhai't (a claim for £IOO as compensation for injuries caused by impalement on a hay fork).—Motion for trial at Oamaru.—Mr Stephens said he appeared on behalf of the defendant to ask for a change of von we. He understood that Mr J. MacGregor, who appeared on the other side,- but who was absent/would, not strenuously oppose the change, but would leave it tS the Court.—lt was agreed to allow the matter to stand over until Mr MacGregor had been heard on the subject.—Mr MacGregor pointed out that the evidence of the doctors at Oamaru as to the man's condition after the accident would not be so important as the medical evidence of his condition now, and ho thought a change of venue, would involve his client in uinecessaiy expense.—His Honor said the Court would make an order for the change of venue if defendant was prepared to pay sometliing towards plaintiff's expenses. This was agreed to, and the hearing was arranged for next Thursday at Oamaru. Nieol v. H.M. the King, a railway employee's claim for payment of £1 10s per week in a lump sum as compensation for injuries sustained while working on the Chain Hill tunnel construction.—Mr Adams, on behalf of the plaintiff, said th-3 defence had been filed only yesterday. The parties had been discussing the matter, and there was really no pute. An adjournment was desired, as there was a prospect of a settlement.— Adjourned accordingly. Doherty v. Milne,* a widows claim for £SOO as compensation for a fatal accident to her husband while in the employ of the defendant, an Edendale farmer."also for £2O as funeral expenses.—Mr Stephens who appeared for the defence, said the case was a country one. He suggested Tuesday as a day suitable for the hearin" of the case.—After further discussion the matter was adjourned until next month the date to be fix«l by the Court. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES. —Federated Boot Trade.— , r M f S c - Brown, secretary of the Boot trade Federation of Employees, appeared m support of an application'to have added to the award two parties—the Dunedin Boot Manufacturing Company and Robertson and Sons. He had heard of no objection.—An order was made to add the parties cited. INDUSTRIAL MATTERS. —Otago Hairdressers.— Mr Catter. on behalf of the Otago hair dressers' assistants, asked that clause 1 of the award be made clear. What the assistants wanted to know was whether, if a holiday occurred during the week, the assistants were still entitled to one night off at 6 o'clock.

. Mr Hilhkcr (for the masters) said that it had been understood that if a full holiday occurred, then the 6 o'clock finish naturally fell out.

-Mr Catter explained that there were several differences in the proposed award as compared with the old award, especially as regards wages and hours, and the 6 o clock finish naturally fell out. His Honor altered the clause so as to read, after the phrase 6 o'clock, " excepting when-a full holiday falls during the week. "

Mr Catter explained the several differences between the old award and the proposed award.

The Court, announced their intention to make an award.

—Southland Carpenters.— Southland Carpenters' Award.—Mr KeLiett. (for the Southland carpenters) applied to have 23 parties added to the award Ao objection was raised, and the order was made.

—Southland Butchers.—

.Southland Operative Butchers' Award.— Mr Glass in support of 54 parties beinc added. b

His Honor: Ihere is an application also to extend the scope of the award. What you want is to extend the award into the country.

Mr Glass explained that the old award onlv cited the Employers' Association, and the individuals cited were largely members of that association. The scope'of the Invercargill award was Invercargill and suburbs and the Bluff, and 22 of the parties on the list, were already parties to the award, although not cited individually under last award.

His Honor said that the Court would make an order adding Oliver (Bluff) and Johnson (Bluff), and adding the Invercargill parties, but would refuse to add the other parties. If an award were wanted for them it would be necessary to apply for one, as in other country districts Lindsay and Co. (lately the Fresh Food Company) explained that that comnanv, which was cited, was defunct.—His Honor saidthat Lindsay and Co. were not mad* parties, nor were pork butchers elsewhere. —Otago Certificated Engine-drivers.— Mr Haymes, on hehalf of the Otago Certificated Engine-drivers' Union, asked the Court, to make an award of the Conciliation Council's recommendation. Applications for exemption were made on behalf of the Invercargill Boron eh Council, the Dunedin Citv Council, the Otago Hospital and Charitable Aid Board the Dunedin Drainage Board, and the Chnstchurch Meat Company. "Mr Haymes pointed out" that the applicants had been bound bv previous awards.

The President explained that thev had been bound under special conditions, which had been dropped bv the union, it would be better to apply 'later to have them added under special conditions. Mr Harraway entered several objections against the proposed inclusion of the driver of his motor lorry. He pointed out that that employee could not be subjected to supervision. The present driver' was not a member of the union. He (Mi- Harra\yay) objected to being placed in the position of having to call upon his employee to join the union. As to payment 'for getting up steam in the morning, he desired to say that be was paid for all holidays. He would not be so well served if brought under the proposed terms. Mr Kmellie applied for exemption on behalf of the Otago Rolling Mills. Mr Lewin asked that the exemption affecting the Dunedin City Council be extended to the gasworks. ' It was more imperative to have these works exempted than the electrical works.

Reasons for other objections mentioned were also given. The President said the Court would consider the objections and applications. —Dunedin Coachworkors and Wheelwrights.—

Mr D. Scurr, for the union, asked that the recommendations of the Conciliation Council be made into an award.

His Honor : Has no employer objected? The Clerk : None. His Honor said that an award would be made on such terms. —Dunedin Plumbers.—

A recommendation had been filed, but several objections were offered to certain clauses in it. •

Mr T. H. Cooper appeared for the union. He asked permission to withdraw clause 15, section D, of the award —"Members of the union shall work for a recognised plumber or gasfitter—that is to say, an employer carrying on business as a plumber or gasfitter in a. place registered under the Factories Act."

Mr G. Simpson, on, behalf of the master builders, objected to the inclusion of a clause which, in short, practically prohibited builders from putting any material on roofs.

Mr J. S. Douglas represented the master plumbers, and Mr Lewin appeared to apply for exemption. Alter a great deal of discussion, the President said it was absurd to ask the Court to make an award including such a silly clause as the one referred to byMr Simpson. Mr Cooper asked permission to withdraw his case.

The application for an award was dis-' missed. —Dunedin Tinsmiths' Award.— This was an application to have Brinsky and Co., Barningham and Co., and Shacklock and Co. made parties to the award. Mr Breen, in support, called evidence. John B. Shacklock said that the firm had manufactured only three shields for motor cars, and had made only one copper canopy for a registered grate.' They made a few chimney cowls and made hot water circulators. There was also a lot of sheet,metal work done. His Honor: What award do the men work under who do this? Witness: Some under the metal workers' assistants' award, others under the range fitters' award. His Honor: Are any of the men not governed by one or another of the awards? Witness: One, I think. Mr Breen: You employ a man named Churchill. What is he? ' Witness: A sheet-metal worker. Archibald Win. Flett (representing A. and T. Burt) said thai they looked upon Shacklock and Go. as competitors in certain lines, and thought the firm should be a party to the award. William Robert Waters (representing J. Anderson and Co.) also thought that Shacklock and Co. should be joined, as I the work was sheet-metal and coppersmith work. .The Secretary of the Tinsmiths' Union said that Churchill, a member of the union, was employed by Shacklock and Co. Mr Shacklock said that his firm com-. | peted with the employers who had given evidence in only one line (copper circulating cylinders). The other items that hud been mentioned' were so small as to deserve do notice. If the exemptions under clause 'll were to stand, lie claimed that his firm should be exempt with the others. It was not a matter ot evading the payment of the wage, but ot avoiding a multiplicity of awards.

_ His Honor 6aid the Court would con sider the matter.