ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 16236, 4 October 1916, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

Second Day.—WednesdatTho Arbitration Court resumed their sitting this mornng. —Freezing Workers, Etc.— In the Otago Freezing, Chemical Manure, Tannery, Soap, and Allied Trades’ dispute Mr F. Ellis, for the union, said that a complete recommendation had been come to, and he asked that it bo made into an award. Ho asked that a fresh clause (clause 12 of tho Auckland Pellmcngers’ award) be inserted in the award. The recommendation before the Court provided for a weekly minimum wage of £2 IS©, but the rates up north were different, and they wanted to safeguard themselves here in that respect. by putting all the fellmongers on the eatno fjotiog, if found necessary later on. Mr Cookson, for tho employers, said he could not see any danger in inserting the clause. He gathered that it was not likely to be put into operation if an increased rate was granted in Canterbury. The union’s object was only to safeguard* the industry, which was a small one hero. There were only 20 men engaged in fellmo ngery under tTio award here. There was practically only,one Fellm misery here, so that the mdustry was an unimportant one so far as this district was concerned. In the recommendation there was nor exemption clause, giving special teime to Waite and Sons. Ha asked that a similar exemption be given to" the Otago Tallow and By-product Company. Mr Ellis said ho had no objection. The President: It seems a fair tiling. Mr Ellis said that the men wei e now being paid the increased irate. The award was mad© accordingly. —Shipwrights.—

In the Dunedin and Port Gb-aim-era United Shipwrights’ dispute there was a partial recommendation, tho points still in aesiie being the wages and the hours of seagoing shipw-rights. The union demanded Is 10£ d! an hom. The employers offered th© terms of the old award —Is 7d. Mr J. Haynvea and Mr 0. ' Smith appeared for tile union, and Mr W. G. Smith for tho Union Steam Ship Company and the Port Chalmers Marine Repair Works. Mr Haymes said that the seagoing ship- . weights were asking to be placed on the same footing as the shore shipwrights. Tli© dock hands at least of a ship’s company, with th© exception of the carpenter, had their regular hours fixed. They were on watch for eight hours only out of 24 hours. It was only fair that the carpenter should be on the same footing, instead of which, he had to bo on duty at any hour of tire day or night when the ship was entering or leaving port. As wages they were asking Is 10/ d for port hands, with Is a day extra for leading or charge hands. Th© present wage had been made before the war commenced, and the cost of living had inoraased enormously, while an additional factor was that the cost of tools had gone up from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent., and a carpenter’s kit cost probably an average of £2O. Tools had, moreover, to_ bo replaced from time to time, and this had the effect of further reducing the man’s actual earnings. Mr Haymes touched upon other less important points —overtime for Sunday work (they asked double overtime) and the respective proportions of apprentices to boat-builder? and shipwrights. What he contended was that while boatbuilders’ apprentices might be set to shipwright work (if there wasßio boatbuilding to be done), the proportion of apprentices to either shipwrights or boatbuilders must not Ire increased by this interchange. He feared that tho proposal under the recommendations would involve such an increase. In conclusion, he said that the union suggested that the term of tile award should be two years. Mr Smith, said that the shipwrights had not suffered by the war; in Fact, they had gained by it. For the past 12 months they had been working on troopships, and their w-ages had been very good indeed, as would bo seen from the w-ages .sheets he_ would put in. There were 60 .shipwrights in tho union, and on an average 36 of them were employed by the Union Steam Ship Company. Ills union were asking for double overtime for Sunday work. His company objected to that. It was true that the waterside workers were getting it, but th© circumstances were totally different. The rates of these, workers had always been high compared with other tradesmen, because their work was of a. casual nature. The work done on Sundays during the last 13 months had been in connection with troopships. So far as travelling time between Port Chalmers and Dunedin was concerned, the objection to that was that all other workers got paid one way only. As to the term of tho award, they would like to see it made for thieo years instead of two. In regard to dirty work, an agreement was come to on that clause before the Conciliation Council. The President announced that the Court would consider the matter. —lron and Brass Moulders.—•

In the Dunedin Iron and Brass Moulders’ dispute Mi' A. Rosser, for the union, said that nothing had been settled in this dispute. Tire ma-chine moulders in Auckland had been awarded Is 3d per hour, but there were very few of these men there. It was in Dunedin and Christchurch where machine moulders existed to any great extent. He realised that Dunedm was the. manufacturing centre in this industry, as indeed it was in many other industries, and he proposed to show the wages paid hero. James Ernest Port, moulder, employed by Stevenson and Cook at Port Chalmers, said that he was paid Is 6d per hour for 44 hours per week. He did not consider Is 6d too much for a journeyman moulder. Thomas Spiers, brass moulder, employed loy A; and T. Burt, said he received Is per hour. Ho did not consider Is 6d an Hour too much for a journeyman moulder. Donald Goilan, iron moulder, with 50 years’ experience, also agreed that Is 6d an hour was not too much for a moulder. John Frances, machine moulder, employed by H. E. Shacklcek, Ltd., said ho received Is an hour for 44 hours a week. This dispute, was proceeding when wo went to press.