ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1467, 30 May 1905, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman, and Messrs Brown and Slater.) PAINTERS’ CASE. The third sitting of the Arbitration Court held in this district opened at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when several trade disputes wore dealt with. The first taken was the dispute between the Gisborne Painters’ and Decorators’ Union, and the local employers. Messrs Rosser, Tustin and Hay appeared for the Union.

In opening Mr Rosser said the main dispute was the question of hours, as most of the employers had agreed to the rate of pay. One of the employers thought that the men should work 48 hours, but the Union would call evidence to show that 44 hours was a fair week’s work. At present there were no apprentices, and the Union wished to have this matter put on a proper footing. Regarding suburban work it was dssired to have the same rates as in the carpentors’ award. Preference to Unionists was asked for. In support of the demands ovidonee was given by R. Atkinson, W. Hay, J. D. Tustin, and H. Forrest. Mr H. Joliife stated that he represented the non-Union men, and had a counter petition on their behalf. Ho worked for Mr HaiJ. His Honor said he would first hoar any of the employers who wished to speak. Mr F. Hall, empioyor, stated that the hours asked for suited him as he paid by the hour. Ho thought that seven hours a day werß sufficient in winter, as it often I was too dark to see inside. Forty-seven hours in summer and ,44 in winter would suit him. Witness considered that the limit for suburban work should bo three miles from the firebell. Gisborne was not like Wellington. Witness paid his highest man 12s a day, and this man could do anything he was put at. Most of his other men got 10s a day. Hands who could only do the rough work were paid 8s a day. Work came in a rush, and hands had to be picked up where they .could-he found. The Union wished to debar employers from getting men from outside. Henry Joliife, painter, paperhanger and decorator, supported the 47 hours per 'week, as also did A, S. Moore, A. E. Haynes and othors. Thomas Morrison, master painter, stated the demands were satisfactory to him- At present witness would pay 10s to 12s a day. In the winter time it was impossible to get on with work at 7.30 a.m., owing to the frost and dew.- - Mr Rosser thought the case for the Union very clear. Tho Union had to move first in the matter, and had done so by the unanimous vote of members. Some of the employers countenanced the-Union. It was not often that employers did that, and it was his duty to acknowledge it when it took place. Settled conditions wore better for non-union men as well as union men. He submitted that the Union had substantiated their claim. Decision was reserved. FREEZERS’ UNION V. NELSON BROS. The second case taken was that of the Freezers’ Union, who cited Nelson Bros, for breaches of award. There were three grounds of contention: • First, that tho company dismissed Edward’Gregg, slaughterman, who refused to sign certain conditions contrary to the terms of tho award ; second, that they paid less than tho - minimum rate (three counts) ; and third, that thoy did not pay overtime.' Mr T. Alston Coleman appeared for the Freezers’ Union,- 1 and Mr G. Stock, with Mr Warren, secretary to tho company, for Nelson Bros. Mr Coleman said tho ease was brought on amicably in ordor that several matters might be cleared up. Mr Stock said that the points would simply bo questions of argumont. It was admitiod that Gregg was asked to sign an agoeomont, but it was held this agreement was quite in accord with tho goneral control eiauso. They also admitted that fines were imposed, but only in special cases. The question of overtime was disputed. Evidence was submitted by Mr Coleman in regard to the.questions of overtime and system of fines that existed. FREEZERS' UNION V. GISBORNE SHEEI’FARMERS CO. A dispute - bottveou the Freezers’ Union and the Gisborne Sheepfarmors’• Frozen Meat Company in regard to the question of overtime was also heard, the same counsel appearing, . After a lengthy argument His Honor intimated that the decision of the Court would bo reserved, and an adjournment wa3 made until this morning, when the carpentors’ dispute will be investigated