A SCRAP OF PAPER

Evening Star, Issue 15891, 25 August 1915, Page 4

A SCRAP OF PAPER

, BREACH OF FAITH ALLEGED. FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE. This morning the assessors in the cl is- , pule between, the Dunedin United Furniture Trades Industrial Union of Workers and the enipkyers signed a recommend a- , tion for submission to the Arbitration Court here, but not before Mr D. Moriarty (of Wellington) had made direct charges * against the Government,; the Labor Department, and the employers, aUeging in regard to the latter that after coining to an honorable agreement in Wellington, with the understanding that such agreement would be brought, before the . Arbitration Court merely formally for judicial, recognition as a Dominion award, they (the employers) _ had treated the whole agreement m the light of the “scrap Of paper’’ that embroiled the world;: Mi Moriarty said that after a six days’ struggle in Wellington the employers had insisted upon an “all or nothing 5 ’ agreement, to be made into an award binding the whole of New Zealand, and had bound themselves, too, to take this agreement in toto and allow it to go through, the Court, i, j P* the workers it had to be stated that this agreement had beeti filed in toto, but when in the course of last week the Court in Wellington was asked to ratify the treaty, and made a fixture for Saturday, Air W. J. Cousins, of Aiicklaiia, with status given him as reprefientihff the employers of New Zealand, repudiated the agreement. The of New Zealand had qeclared themselves very solemnly some time ago on the “Red Fed.” doctrine to helb with agreements,” which was preached by one man in a sort e! soap-box oratory; it appeared to the speaker that while- the employers were not preaching this doc.ime they were practising it. The system of conciliation and arbitration had conic down to a low class, and, personally, he would never sign an agreement while -Mr Grenfell, of Wellington, was present. ihe_ men had been tricked and trapped (as it appeared to him), the employers usmg Mr Grenfell to get a bad case struck out. The men had contended that tho agent, as of the agitator type, was better away from Conciliation Councils, and Mr Hally had stated that tho agent was a stumbling-block in the process of arbitration. The speaker thought it imperative, in view of what had happened in Wellington, that no agent could be present at conciliation proceedings, because the proceedings of council had been, prostituted. People who would never come before the Conciliation Council reserved the right to go to the Court. The Labor Department would_ not administer tho labor laws. Eta had himself remarked 13 breadies'of agreement, and had written the Hon. Mr Massey for'a square deal, and the only explanation lie had received was one which, he had characterised as evasive and full of half-truths. If the matter were taken before the House the fact had do be remembered that ,70 out of the 80 members were employers, and the Labor Department was not likely Co be punished for failure to enforce the law. As to this particular agreement, and the treatment accorded by the Court, lie would cheerfully admit that the present Judge had always given him a fair, patient hearing, but he must insist that when an agreement had been arrived at which by mutual consent was to become an award without any dispute of clauses, the Court should not have listened to the employers’ representatives on the question of altering and going over the clauses again. It was quite evident that an agreement, even if made with the honorable consent of all parties concerned, was not worth the paper it was written bn. The Court had allowed the re-entry of the argument as _it regarded wire mattress makers and picture frame makers* and tho ■Het_ position was that the employers by their action had treated the agreement exactly as the Germans treated the famous scrap of paper ”; and unless the powers that Ire would see to the proper administration of the Arbitration Act and the labor laws, the Labor parties of New Zealand would have to organise as the Allies in the war had done to crush the arrogance .of a power that ' treated . an. honorable undertaking as a ' “ scrap of paper.” If the employers of Dunedin would instruct their advocate to keep to the word of honor given, and sign the agreement for all New Zealand, he Was willing to sign. In conclusion, Mi* Moriarty expressed his appreciation of the straightforward action of Mr Nees (Dunedin) throughout, but reiterated his regret that the country had been put to the expense of holding court sittings throughout New Zealand because the terms of agreement had been broken. °

Mr EL F. Nees, an Otago assessor, said that a. good deal of what Mr Moriarty had said was not relevant. The employers had sacrificed a good deal to get a Dominion award, but tho trouble was that there were always some employers who did not take much interest in the efforts of the assessors appointed, but who raised their objections in the Court. While unions worked with one object, employers worked their businesses on varying lines and were differently affected, aud the position was that every man who payed his subscription to tho Employers’ Association had the right to the services' of tho agent or secretary at the Court. lu misunderstanding this position, Mr Moriarty did an injustice to Mr Grenfell and Mr Consuls, who probably were iu the position of having to act against inclination. This, agreement arrived at could only be repudiated by special instructions from the Advisory Board. Thera s , uch inst rnctions from tho board. But the board could nob control the objections of outside firms who would not attend tho conferences, hub who lat*r could demand tho services of the association officer in objecting. Ho objected to the statement that tho employees had been trapped. The agreement was drawn up by himself and Mr Cousins, and Mr Cousins had worked entirely to uphold tho agreement. Unfortunately he was compelled, as the representative of tho employers, -to represent not only the Advisory Board, but to advise other employers too, and to represent them. In accor<ianoo with tho agreement made in Wellington, ho had copies signed, and ho did not anticipate argument here. Mr Moriarty said that Mr Grenfell was the agent, and should not have asked that matters be struck out, merely because there were one or two objectors, after the employers had passed their word of honor. He should have applied for exemption on behalf of these obieotors. J Ihe- Conciliation Commissioner (Mtf f 1- iSSs) said _he had never known an instance in which the assessors had pleased all the they represented, and it was better to sign a recommendation than an agreement. As far as Otago was concerned, there existed the best of feeling in the trade. After a little further discussion the recommendations . were signed for submis. 6ion to the Court. The principal points in the agreement' a.s intended to become a Dominion award are • Hours, 44 per week; wages, Is 6d per hour; unskilled workers, Is l£d; apprentices from 9s per week In the first year to 30s in the fifth; improvers, Is lid , per hour for first six months, and Is 3J for second, six months. The new clausa as to ''helpers” is as under; Helpers may be employed as assistants to machinists and wire mattress makers in the proportion of one helper to three or fraction of three journeymen employed. Helpers shall be paid at the following rates of pay:—Up to 16 years of age, 15s per week; 16 to 17 years of age, 18s per week; 17 to 18 years of age, 22s per week; 18 to 19 years of age, 25s per week; 19 to 20 years of age, 30s per week; 20 to 21 years of age, lOd per hour. . Application for exemption or distinction was made by the Otago Brush Company, Smith and Smith, Wren and Co., D. Scott and Co., and the Union Steam Ship Company, the last of which firms employs girls for work incidental to the trade. In each case it was left to the Court to make or refuse exemption. The assessors were; For the employers —■Messrs H, P. Nees, J. Heaney, and W. E. Hayward; for the men—Mr D. MoriartyJWemngton), Mr W. J. Huston, and Mr J. Haymes. < •.