ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23136, 9 December 1938, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

CABLE TRAM EMPLOYEES' DISPUTE

The only, case heard by the Court of Arbitration this morning was an application for an industrial agreement between the Kaikorai Cable Tramway employees ■ and the employers, to be made into an . award. Mr J. A. Gilmour, Industrial Magistrate, presided. Mr W W. Batchelor appeared for the employees and - Mr A. S. Cookson for the employers, Mr Batchelor said that an agreement had been reached in all except three clauses. There were two parties to the agreetnent, the Dunedin City Corporation and the Dunedin and Kaikorai Tram Company, but a complete agreement had been reached with the former and the same agreement was sought with the Tram Company. The old award expired on March 31 of this year, and an application for a conference between the three parties was made early in March for the purpose of discussing a new agreement. For various reasons the conference was not held until August, when a complete agreement was reached with the City Corporation. As the corporation realised that the conference had been delayed through no fault of the union, the increase in wages was made retrospective to April 1. The applicants asked that the terms of the agreement with the Tram Company should be the same as witli the corporation. The Kaikorai Company refused to review the position for a period of one year, with the result that for that time the employees were working for- one -penny an hour less than the City Corporation cable tramway employees. This amounted to 3s 4d a week. As the Arbitration Court did not come to Dunedin for some time, there was no opportunity of securing redress.' Both sets of men did identical work’ and previously the wages had been the same. The clause dealing with broken shifts had been agreed to by the City Corporation, and it had-been in many previous awards, and no reason was known why the company should object to the clause. The City Corporation had also agreed to pay all men employed on rope work at senior gripmen’s rates.

Evidence was given by Alexander Potbury. Mr Cookson said that the company saw no reason why the conditions should be the same for the company as for the corporation, and it did not consider itself bound by anything the corporation had agreed to.* The compaify was not responsible for the delay in arranging the conference, but immediately an agreement was reached on the subject of wages the new rate was put in operation, but it did not see any reason to make it.retrospective! It was maintained, in respect to the matter of rope work, that only one man was responsible, and he selected assistants from amongst the other employees, but it would be possible to go elsewhere and engage labourers if necessary. Evidence was given by Janies Alexander Patterson, after which the Magistrate said he would take time to consider. his decision.