ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume LII, Issue 5465, 28 April 1920, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTINGS IN GISBORNE

SOFTGOODS DISPUTE

Proceedings in the Arbitration Court wore continued yesterday before Justice It. Stringer with Messrs Scott and McCullough as -^flssscia-tes. The first case called was that between the Auckland Soltgoods’ Associated Employees Industrial union of Workers (Gisborne branch) and the various soltgoods employers 5 associations. , , Mr Blood-worth, who represented the appellant Union, said the main points in dispute related to classification. wages, casual bands, Labor Day holiday, "and preference. On a l tnese points the Onion sought an adjustment of their claims on the basis of the Christchurch award of ‘JSth February, 1920 ■ Mr Westbrook, who represented the employers did not see the necessity of being bound by the Christchurch award. On most points, however, the employers wore willing to concede the employees’ claims nut so far as the employers of Gisborne were concerned the latter though at present bound by the Aueklanc, award, were desirous of a separate award! for Gisborne. In this connection it was pointed out that the cost of landing goods at Gisborne was -5 per cent, extra as compared with Auckland. With . regard to, the question oi Labor Day holiday he did not see that this should be observed as a sort of fetish by the Unions. Labor day this year falls during a week when there were several other holidays. It was not desirable to have so many holidays in one week. The employers were willing to grant a day in lieu of Labor Day and many unions had been willing to accept this proposition. His Honor reserved his decision. CARPENTERS’ WAGES. The next case dealt with was that of the Carpenter’s Union against the Master Builders Association, in connection with which the claim by the appellant Union for increased wages had already been before the Arbitration Court in Auckland. Mr .Bloodworth stated that the case r.ad been heard in Auckland so far as the unsettled clauses were concerned and the point at issue here was as to the scope of tile award ; whether Gisborne should he covered by the Auckland award or whether Gisborne should have a separate carpenters award as before. The Carpenters’ Union desired to be covered by the Auckland award and could not see any reason for a separate award as the terms of the two awards in tho past have been identical and! the recommendations from the conciliation council which had settled most of tne points acre applicable to Gisborne just equally with Auckland. Mr Westbrook, for tho employers, urged a- separate award, because they thought they would have a bettor chance in getting ’ conditions suitable to Gisborne by a separate award than by inclusion in the Auckland award. In reply Mr Bloodwortb said they had had a separate award in the past and. that the terms just the same as in the Auckland award. He thought Gisborne employers had a better chance of getting their ideas embodied in the award when acting with Auckland employers. His Honor reserved his decision.