ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 17369, 3 June 1920, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

Secoxd Day.—Wednesday. The court resumed their sitting this morning, His Honor Mr Justice Stringer presiding. ENGINEERS' DISPUTE. The Otago and Southland general engineers' d ; spute. (partial recommendation) was the first taken. Mv A. J. Rice (for the -union) said that the first clause referred to the Court was sub-clause "f" (overtime), which read: "Xo worker shall wcrk overtime on Friday night, and no worker shall work more than 24 hours' overtime in any one period." The union considered that "there should be a limitation to overtime. The workers did not mind- working overtime in the case of a break-down. Friday was the late rrght for shopping. The next clause in dispute was in connection with wages sub-clause c —" All wages shall be paid weekly in the employer's time, and notlater than on Friday."" This clause, like the previous one, had been granted in Canterbury. Another clause in dispute was Xo. 10.—" Employers shall provide proper sanitary conveniences, and all workshops shail be heated by slow combustion stoves so that the temperature shall not be below 60 degrees Fahrenheit; also proper provision shall b8 made for lockers for workers' clothes; also a sufficient supply of boiling water at meal times." The clause "was in operation at the present time, with the exception of the heating of workshops. The next clause in dispute was—" Piece work and premium bonus shail not bo permitted." The piece-work s.y3tem was altogether out of place. The last clause objected to was preference, which read "If any employer shall hereafter engage any worker coming within the scope of this award, who shall not be a membeT of the union, and who does not a member of the union within seven days thereof after his engagement, and remain a member the employer shall dismiss such worker form his service if requested to do so by the union." There was no provision in the present award for preference.

Mr A. S. Cook-son, for the employers, said that they were not aware of the'provisions mentioned beina in the Canterbury agreement. The inclusion of the overtime clause in question was objected to because it prohibited any emergency work beinc done on Friday night. The President: Ii restricted to emergency work then you would have no objection ? Mr Cookson: The question would then arise: What is emergency work? Proceeding, he said there was"a class of worn done here in tho. engineering workshops that was not dona in Christ church, it was essential that there should be some provision for agricultural work. Tne practice here was.to pay wages weeklv or fortnightly. The question of heating "was a ridiculous one. It was the custom to have- fires in the shops. It was impracticable to heat a foundry at a fixed degree. The buildings were op'en as -a rule. The award _at present provided for sanitary conveniences. Provision had alwavs been made for improvers. The union had not only •prevented piecework, but they had prevented men working overtime. The employers did not object to the Court's preference clause, but they objected to the union's additional clauses.

Mr Rice, in reply, said that the workers v.-er& up against the stock catalogues clause being included ia the award. They would have nothing at all to do with it. Tho President: You say that the worker is to be paid in the employer's time. Has the latter to go round "and pay him while at work? Air lilce: That is the usual way. The President: I 6 aw the other day that some coal miners refused to wait a quarter of an hour for a train to take them to work, because it was delayed on account of fop;, so they went home, and tiius reduced the production of coal bv hundreds of tons. I suppose that is the flame principle here? Later the President asked if it was correct, as stated by Mr Cookson, that the union took stens to prevent men from working under the pieSework clause. Mr Rica said ha understood that there was a prosecution pending against the union in connection with that matter the President himself had said that men couJd not be torced to work overtime The President: But the suggestion is that you prevented men who wanted to from working overtime. Mr Race: I cannot recollect of any instance where we prevented it. Mr Cookson : The workers at Port Chalmers reiusod to work overtime until thev got an increase in wages, and they succeeded in forcing the hands of the employers. The President: They refused to work overtime at the award rate? Mr Cookson: Yes, until an increase was granted to them on the existing award rate. = Mr Rico said that the union had no jurisdiction over the branch there The President said the Court would take time to consider the matter. TINSMITHS' DISPUTE. The tinsmiths and sheet metal workers' dispute (no recommendation) was then Mr Rice said exactly the same set of conditions were asked for in this dispute as m the previous one. the idea being to get a consolidated award for the whole engineering industry. Mr Cookson said that tho existing awards were not the same. 'Die conditions in the engineering trade did not apply to the tinsmiths and sheet metal workers, it had not been discussed in the Conciliation Council. He thought that an effort should be made to settle it there. The President: Don't -von think, ItfV Rice, it would be better to" refer it to the Conciliation Council, the employers undertaking that it shall operate from the same date as the engineers' award? Mr Rice eaid that thev wanted a copeolidatsd award, the same as was done in other countries. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Council, or to a conference if it could be arranged there. ' METAL WORKERS' ASSISTANTS. The Metal Workers' Assistants' Union's dispute was next heard. Mr L. F. Evans, for the union, said that wages was the only clause in dispute. They asked for 2s Ad an hour for the higher skilled worker and 2s 3d for the others. _ The President said the Court wonld, consider the matter. ther applications for bonuses.