ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18139, 1 December 1922, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

DUNEDIN SETTINGS. Tho Arbitration, Court —Mr Justice Frazer (president) and Messrs W. fecotb and AL J. fteardon (assessors)— resumed its sittings in Dunedin yesterday morning. ENGINEERS’ DISPUTE. Tho court -proceeded to hear the engineers’ -dispute, including general engineers, ■tinsmiths and shoct-motai workers, range workers, and motor mechanics. Mr W. Brown, with Mr A. b. Cookson, appeared for the employers and Mr R. F. Barter (dominion advocate) for the union. , „ , ... It was decided to deal first with the general engineering section. In reply to tho president the parties agreed that the only matters to be dealt with here' were exemptions and purely local conditions. Wages would be settled at a sitting in Christchurch. Mr Cookson made application; for exemption on behalf of tire engineering firms at Port Chalmers. In tire past, he said, they had had a separate agreement, and had again filed an .appliction for a separate award. ’ , The President asked if -both sides agreed to a separate award for Port Chalmers. Mr Barter replied in the negative, and said the firms at Port Chalmers were in the same position as companies in Wellington and Auckland, whrdh were covered by -the general engineers’ award there. There was no reason why there should be a different award hero. _ The union strongly opposed the application for a separate award for Port Chalmers. He contended that -the application was not in order, on the ground that there was no Port Chalmers branch of the union as cited by the employers. Previous to the war -the parties bad had one award. Further. two of the firms at Port Chalmers were at present parties Ito the Wellington and Auckland engineer's’ awards. It seemed to him that it was an attempt to got in the thin edge of the _ wedge and to try to make the work of the court more difficult, irrespective of the greater ■expense which would be caused to the worker's’ organisation. It had been in Auckland tlia.t tliG overhauling of winches was “ dirty ” work, requiring special payment, and the ‘‘heat clausa had also been agreed to there. The union also took strong exception to the addition which -the employers asked to be made to the preference clause. Mr Cookson said they were not pressing strongly for a separate award, but wanted special provision made for ship work. He made application for the exemption of a number of firms which had cither been struck out at the last hearing or not cited. Those firms, he contended, were not in business a® engineers. Mr Barter replied that films Such as those mentioned by Mr Cookson were parties to the Auckland and Wellington awards. Some of those firms employed eight or nine engineers, who were memhere of their organisation. It was stated that there firms were not in competition with engineering firms, but if they did not employ engineers to do the work they would have to send the work -out to the engineering films. . ~ Mr Cookson culled to give evidence George ATGeorge. eecrctary of the Bluff Harbor Board, who stated that since the board was struck out on the last occasion aa a part-v there was -no difference in the condition of emplovment. Ihe board employed one engineer. On behalf of (ho union. Arthur James Rice, secretary of the Dunedin branch of tho union, gave evidence, and stated that some of the firms which the union asked' to be added employed six or eight engineers. The President said the court would consider the matter of -exemptions. In dealing with the general claims of the union, Mr Barter said there were very few matters to be dealt with by the court. The matter of hours of work had been settled hero and for all branches, and other clauses which ho enumerated had also been settled. Ho suggested that the apprentice clause, which had not been agreed to, should be referred to Christchurch. The union would also endeavor to show the court that it was deeply interested in ihe training of apprentices. The scope of the award had been fixed, and he asked that its term of operation should be left to -the Christchurch silting. Mr Brown said the hours _of work bad been agreed to at the Conciliation Council by tho assessors. The employers as a whole felt that too much had been given away. With regard to wages, they were auite prepared to leave them to tho court. The same applied to tho apprentice clause. The apprenticeship period was five years, with the sixth year as an improver’s year. They insisted on the improver s year being retained. Piecework and the bonus system were asked for on the same terms as last The employers had agreed to the recognition of a shop steward for each department, but felt that there was no necessity to give _ access to the-union secretary. The majority of tho ironmasters we re of opinion that the whole preference clause required to bo revised and stripped of the objectionable features. The union demands of 1922 sought to add a: total of twonty-threo branches, and it was contended) _ that several of them were not admissible within the meaning of the Act, as they did not come within tho scope of tho award. Tho President said the court had fixed tho hearing in Christchurch for Wednesday and Thursday of next week. TINSMITHS. In the case of tho tinsmiths and sJicelmetal workers, Mr Barter said the union was agreeable to accept the court's current rate of wages, qualified bv the recent pronouncement on tho cost of living bonus, Mr Brown said he was not empowered to make any settlement with regard to wages. He was instructed to ask that they bo submitted to the court. The same thing applied in tho caso of rangemakers. Mr Cookson submitted that there were cases in which -the award was overlapped by other "awards. He applied lor exemption for all the plumbers covered by -the present award. Tho President intimated that tho court would consider its decision. RANGE-MAKERS.

In connection with range-makers, Mr Barter said he wished to discuss their wages in Christchurch. The President said tho caso would bo gone into them