ARBITRATION COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 March 1922, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

TIMBER WORKERS AWARD. The Arbitration Court continued its Greymouth sittings yesterday afternoon there being on the Bench (Air. Justice Frazer, (president), Air. AV. Scott (employers’ representative) and Air. Al. J. Reardon (employees’ representative). A peculiar position arose in connection with the ’Westland Timber Yards and Sawmills Industrial Union of Workers’ application for an award. An agreement on a number of the clauses had been arrived at in a Council of Conciliation-held under the presidency of Air. AV. Newton (Conciliation Commissioner) in November last. Apparently the assessors for the union were not empowered to enter fully into an agreement and they yesterday wished on that ground to submit the whole of the award to the Court. The employers were represented, by Mi-. W. J. Butler, and the Union by Air. F. L. Turley. When Air. Turley had explained that he wished the whole award to be considered. Air. Butler said that the employers’ assessors were not prepared for that. They thought that only the clauses not agreed upon would come to Court, and they had acted in prefect faith, assuming that tin agreement hail been reached. Air. Turley asked if the matter coula be deferred until the next sitting of the Court. His Honour: The question is, we don’t know when we will be back. “Will it not be three months’” asked Air. Turley. “We don't know,” said his Honour. “We sit in the centres every three months, and find it very difficult to do that sometimes. It is ten months since we were last here.” Finally Air. Turley decided to agree to the findings of the Conciliation Court and to discuss the terms not agreed upon, the employers in return consenting to a short-dated award operating for twelve months from January. “MAY DAY.” Air. Turley outlined the terms which the union sought in the award. -In the holidays clause, he said that in addition to the ordinary holidays, including Labour Day they required May Day. “That’s something new!” said Air. Scott. “It is recognised throughout the world as the workers’ day.” said Air. Turley, “and we want to enable the Umber union to combine with other workers in a joint celebration.” I hey also required holidays on the day of the annual general meeting and the davs of the annual meeting of the T'nion. These days were required by the* timber workers because they had not the same opportunities as othei' o""anisations, which could meet ot an evening. They had also io apply for travelling time which had been granted b - the Court in Southland, where the conditions were better than those existing on the Coast. Hero the men were away sometimes as much as ten hours a. day, sometimes in the rain. In regard to the contract system, they did not think that it was right that, one man should be taken and put on to tramway and bush contracts and have others placed under him on wages. It had caused a lot of trouble. Air. Justice Frazer cited eases in which Air. Justice Sim had held that the Court had no power to regulate the conditions of contract. The Court was willing that there be incorporated in the award a clause providing that every contract should have a provision that the contractor abide by the conditions of the award. Air. Turley said that if his clause was “against the law” he would accept his Honour’s recommendation. In speaking in support of the claim for the provision of tools, Air. Turley said that tools were a great expense to the employees, and although the provision of tools would make no difference to companies with, “big profits” it made a big difference to a worker on a minimum wage. If the employers had had the interests of the workers only a little at heart they would have got together and procured the tools at wholesale rates. They had missed their opportunity, and the employees were now applying for the full provision of tools by the employers. They also wanted wages to be paid in cash, ami a reduction in the "multifarious duties of engine-drivers, who were at prosent not only engine drivers but navvies and slabbies as well. HOUSING CONDITIONS. The rental of houses was another point which affected the employees in no small way. At Moan a and To Kinga the houses were really good and fit for any man to live in, but at other mills they were a positive disgrace. He had seen women and children living in a class of house in which he would not put a decent dog. However willing the workers might be to pay rental for good houses, they were not prepared to pay it for the usual class. He also dealt briefly with the clauses dealing with conditions of work and bathing and drying sheds. Another clause dealing' with facilities for the collecting of Union dues by order from the employer, and drawn by cheque from the company was neces« sary, ho said in districts where collection would have to be made over scattered areas. It did not give the secretary arbitary powers, and when the condition was in force by mutual agreement, as it had been, only one employer had objected ; but the Association had now objected as a whole. In view of the fact that the award was to be short-dated, he would not call as many witnesses as he had intended, but he would call evidence on the condition of some of the mills. A. Thompson, manager of Goss and Go’s mills at Aloana, gave evidence as to the nature of the houses provided . by his firm for the men. They were ( up-to-date and well appointed. In answer to Air. Butler, witness said that the houses were built on < township sections and partly with a . = ' i

view to the possibility of their commercial value being enhanced with the completion of the midland railway. B. Topp, sawmiller, said that the conditions at some of the mills were 5 not of the best. lie knew that many L of the men were away from their ‘ homes long hours. CASE FOR EMPLOYERS. Air. Butler then outlined the case ; for the employers. He asked that in ' any consideration of the items upon which an agreement had not been arrived at in the Conciliation Council ' they would ask the Court to admit and consider their counter-proposals oqual- . ly with the Union’s claims, lie would . point out, however, that where it was slated that new claims had been referred to the court it should not be | taken as indicating that they were de- ■ sirous of submitting such claims io the Court. As a matter of fact they ■ were not in favour of any consideration being given to such new ’matter. There were no grounds for any alter- ■ alien in the overtime clause of the . existing award. It was very neces- . sary that the rate set for timber load- [ ing in that award should not be ex- . ceeded. as the time during which such i loading could be done was invariably beyond the control of the employer, 1 and the restricted railway service made it more necessary that a flat rate , for t imber loading should be fixed. The ■ proposed deletion of the Sovereign’s Birthday and the substitution of May . Day was strenuously opposed, and the claim for a. holiday for the second . meeting day was also opposed. The present section should apply in its entirety. The concession of payment , for travelling time would amount 10 , payment for time not worked if in- ; eluded in the eight hours; and if added it would mean not only an increase > of wages but in .many cases, overtime. The phrase “travelling time” in the usual sense meant time occupied by a t man in travelling to some particular { job after commencing his day’s work. Payment for such time was already customary. The matter of the supply ol tools respectively by the workers and the employers had been so well established that any alteration did not seem necessary. Air. Turley's statement that the employers had missed their opportunity prompted the question whether the ilnion itself did not miss an opport uni ly. It could have indented tools and sold them at a cheap rate, and was certainly more closely identified with the interests of the workers than the companies. IT it was thought advisabe to provide for a half-monthly holiday, they would suggest that where a 75 per cent, majority of the workers so desired it, the payment of wages should lie made monthly as before. H ALL V. BATHROOM. The- employers opposed any compulsory provision in the direction of pro- . viding a drying-room and bathroom. He remembered when £lOO was set aside by his company for bathing accommodation and. social purposes. He called a meeting of the men to deal with its expenditure. The committee, instead of having the bathroom, decided to build a. social hall. He did not say the bath was not desirable, but the incident showed that it was not wished for. Mr. Turley said that the men would haw been foolish riot to have spent the money in another direction when there were hopes of getting the bathroom from the Court. Mr. Butler, continuing, said that there were many small mills which had a very short .life, and other where hardly any of the workers lived on the job or would be likely to utilise those conveniences, and the compulsory expenditure would be a harsh provision. No employer should bn compelled to undertake the collection of Union moneys, which was plainly the work of the Union secretary. They recognised that for safety's sake it was desirable to have men working within reach of each other—though it was sometimes safer to have them apart. (Laughter). Practically all sawmill bush work was done in company, but to make it a hard and fast rule would compel the employer at times to pay two men for one man’s work. He would respectfully suggest that any alteration' of conditions which might involve additional costs to the employer must tend to a general increased cost, of living, and on that account should not be considered unless the benefits to the worker outweighed the increased cost to Hie consumer. Air. Justice Frazer said that the Court would make an announcement later. This concluded the Greymouth sittings of the Court. The next sitting of the Court takes place at Westport to-morrow. CONCI LIAT TON J ’ROCEEDIN GS. J URGE’S INTLM ATI ON: A point of some public interest was dealt with by the Arbitration Court yesterday, when hearing the application for an award by the Timber Workers’ Union. Air. Turley, for the Union, claimed that as the recommendation of the Conciliation Council (which covered among other things the matter of wages and hours of work) had not been approved by the Union, the latter was at liberty to call on the Court to deal w’ith all matters in dispute, including those on which the respective assessors had agreed at the sitting of the Conciliation Council. Air. Butler, for the other side, claimed that the recommendation had been accepted in good faith, by the employ- ■ ers, and that the matters agreed upon should not be re-opened. I His Honour, Air. Justice Frazer, in explaining the position, stated that while a partial recommendation of the Council such as was made in this case had no legally binding effect, yet it was the invariable custom of tire r Court to embody such recommenda- ■ tions in awards, reserving the right to make alterations where such were f necessary, either for the purpose of 1 improving the wording of the docu- 1 ment, or to remedy any manifest in- ’ justice which might arise through i

error or ignorance in the preparation of the recommendation. It seems obvious that were the Court to follow any other practice, and permit either side to repudiate at will tho recommendations of Conciliation Councils, the latter’s days would be numbered.