CONCILIATION COUNCIL

Grey River Argus, 16 December 1920, Page 3

CONCILIATION COUNCIL

SHOP ASSISTANTS' DISPUTE.

PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY.

The Conciliation Commissioner, lvir W. Newton, presided over a meeting of the above Council here yesterday. The Assessors on behalf of the shopkeepers were:— Messrs E. J. Smith, P. Beck and H. Harley, and those on liehalf of the Union were Messrs R. D. Martin, J. Goodall and Swallow. Mr Newton, in opening the proceedings said that he hoped that the discussions would.be carried out in a friendly spirit, and with due- toleration .on both, sides. Then there would bo no doubt that an agreement would be arrived v, at. . " , . The Chairman then proceeded to' -- 1 over a list of employees cited. Objection was raised by Mr E. J. Smith who took exception to the Drapers; and Boot Retailers' Associations being cited. He said that the Association was only in existence to deal: wit;h holidays, etc. . Mi- Martin said the Court had ruled in Christchurch that as long as a com--munication was sent and answered, it was sufficient proof that an Association was in an existence . Mr Smith .said that the Drapers' Association collected no subscriptions, and the secretary's position was an honorary one. Mr Smith objected to the Runanga Cooperative ' Store, and the Blackball Co-operative Store" being included, on the ground that they were in the Nelson district.. Mr Goodall said that he. was Secretary of the Westland Engine Drivers' Union, and their award covered the Westport District. Mr Harley said he thought that it was against the employers' interest to bar any firms, since there might be unfair competition in, the matter of lower wages if firms close to Greyniouthwere left out, Mr Martin said . the employers .themselves were responsible for the spirit of unrest among the workers. If they .would mind their own. business, and let their workers mind theirs, they would get on. far better. Mr Smith said he wished to present a petition, from the employees of the Greymouth Shopkeepers ' objecting to an award being made. Mr Martin objected to .the petition being in this way presented to the Court. He said it was extraordinary that the employers should present a petition from their own workers. He demanded that if any workers petition be presented, it be presented by one of the workers themselves. Mr Smith agreed that the petition bo presented by one of the workers. A considerable discussion took place re the merits, of Guilds, etc., and Mr Martin said that the Guilds, as. tney were. at present constituted encouraged commercial immorality, in, 'so far as that they had firms in Christchurch making bargains with their employees to keep out of the Unions, and guaranteering to pay them the same wages as the unions succeeded in getting, in their awards. .He held that this aimed at the verj&roots of unionism. He , said that in this- country the employers had fought the employees on every issue. While they had talked about Hickey's "To Hell with Agreements," they were actually breaking the agreements every day. When the 9/- bonus was given by the Court, the shopkeepers raised their prices accordingly, and now the prices have not come down, although the 9/- bonus was not paid, and it was not likely to be paid. Mr Bock said "what the employers objected to was. the extreme labour section. The Chairman suggested* that they go f>n with the discussion. "MY Martin objected, to going on T»-jfii Oio. riiannssion until the petition was dealt with. Mr Smith said that the employers were prepared to work under the Christchurch award, less 5 pur cent". The Employers', representatives suggested that it 1 was cheaper to live on the Coast than it was in Christchurch, Messrs T. Scott, G. Herring, and R. Reynolds hero, entered to present the petition of the employees objecting to beiTicj covered by the Union. Hr Martin tlion asked thnf ns th« petition was being presented, the evidence submitted be taken on oath. Mr Smith said that this seemed absurd. He -would like to know what authority Mr Martin had for making the request. Thos. Scott was then sworn", and said he presented a, petition signed by about 98 employees, in the shops in Greymouth. He personally objected to some of the clauses. Ho said that they were satisfied with their conditions. Mr Smith said that the employees objocfed to being forced to join, the Greymouth Shop Assistants' Union. The petition, as presented was headed as follows:- — "We, the undersigned shop assistants, object to being forced to join the Wostland Shop Assistants' Union by a small majority -who are stiriying to force us so to do.?' Mr Goodall said that some of those who signed the petition were already members of the Union. Mr Smith objected to Mr Martin cross-examining Mr. Scott. He had heard of Mr Martin' s reputation! Mr Martin retaliated by saying that if Mr Smith's reputation was as good as his, he could be proud of it. Cross-examined by Mr Martin, Mr Scott said, he was a qualified .drapers' assistant. He objected to stating what his wages were. . Mr Smith also objected to the question, and advised. Mr Scott not to answer Mr Martin's question. The Chairman, ruled that the question was relevant. To Mr Martin: He did not know who secured; the first signatures to the petition. The petition was handed to him by another , employee, R. B. Smith. The petition, was first sighed' by Smith, and then handed on to him. R. B. Smith was an, employee at C. Smith's. When he had: finished with the petition, he left it on ,the clothing counter. He did not object to an award being made in Greymouth. He thought it quite fair that' those who received low wages should 'try to get more. Mr! E. J. Smih again objected to 'some of the cmestions asked, and*again

Mr Martin, criticised Mr Smith's action. It was extraordinary. For an employer to tell an employee not to answer a question. If Mr Smith attempted such a thing in the Arbitration Court he would 'soon be silenced. Mr Scott said that, personally, he was not against an award being made. Mr Herring objected to join a union. He objected to. being forced to join anything. The petition was first brought to him by Mr Walter Scott. Mr Scott was the Manager. He objected to state what wages he received. He thought every man had a right to good wages, but he always had to look, after himself. He had iio objection to. an. award being made, but he objected, to being forced to join the Union. To. Mr Hurley: The. employees at Ashby Berg's, were, well satisfied, and he was also satisfied. ' ' , To. Mr Martin,: He did not think a woman, could live on 22/6 per week. H e would not like to block '. anyone from getting an increase of pay. To Mr Swallow: He .had already stated his objection to th c Union. .He was not keen on unionism. Mr E. J. Smith again objected to the questions. Mr Martin wished to know who typsd the petition. Apparently, no one knew where the petition originated from. He would ask that the petition he ruled out, as the representatives who presented the petition did not object to an award being made, but to joining the Union. Mr Harley asked whether it were necessary to. keep the petitioners any longer. The petitioners then retired.. The Chairman asked whether it was tho intention of the employees to use the petition, to object to an award bomg made. ! Mr Smih said they held the right to object to anything that was done there when they went into the Arbitration Court. Mr Martin asked if it was the employers, and not the non-unionists who tvore going to use. the petition. It was decided that the petition be left out. Several preference clauses were here suggested! It ; was finally ■ decided to take the preference clause adopted by the Arbitration Court. Mr Harley said that if they got :lown fo business, and discussed the Canterbury award, they would, make some progress. As far as he was conserned, he wanted fairness and he did not object toi an award being made. The Chairman suggested that they Efo along and discuss the agreement, clause by clause, and get an agreement on as many points as possible. When they had done this, they could refer all the clauses in dispute to the j Arbitration Court. When the hours of work were discussed, the Union demanded 44 hours per week, the employers, 48 hours. Mr Beck said he was in, favour of I 5 o'clock closing. He suggested that it was for the employers to' say what hours the employees should work. Mr Martin contended that the employees should have as much say as to their hours of work as their masters'. The old idea that the masters had all the say was gone, and it was time, too! Tho workers were not slaves.' Mr Smith objected to such & ttvrcf, j as slaves being used. Mr Martin said he was sony he had hurt" the' feelings of the employers as- j sessors, but that anything of a pro- J gressive nature hurt them. He would suggest that if an agreement could be comb to on the hours of work, the Union representatives would be willing to forgo the two other contentions clauses. Mr Harley said this showed a fine spirit" of give and take. He liked to sco such a spirit. , The employers Assessors wished to take the Christchurch nwaTd with a !> rccr cent, rerluc'tion. Mr Hnricy said j ho had heard rt lot about what the cm- ] ployers should pay: but he n&ver heard the Union officials say how much the workers should do for their money. Mr Martin: The employers wished for a reduction of 5 per cent, on awards that had been in existence for two years. Many of these awards have now almost expired and the members of the Unions' are seeking a considerable advance in wages/* The Council here adjourned for lunch. On resuming, after lunch, Mr' Martin stated that the Drapers had. continuously found excuses- that the girls in the drapery "trade should be paid at the rate of per week. Mr Smith suggested that the employers on the Coast were not responsible for what they did elsewhere. Mr Martin said that they took 'the awards from other parts when it suited them. The proceedings here were livened by a rather acrimonous crossfire between Mr Smith and Mr Martin. Mr Smith said that the employers had made an offer and intended to stick to' it. The employers considered it a legitimate and fair offer. They did not. come there for conciliation— they some there to defend the employers. They did not come there to be insult3d> as they had been; Mr Harley asked if the employees representatives wore prepared' to accept an agreement on the basis v£ the Canterbury award, with the deduction •> of sper cent, left out. Mr Goodall stated that tho Union demanded" an increase on the Christchurch. rates, He held that the West Coast was a far more expensive place to live than Christchurch. Unskilled labours on the Coast was paid, at the rate of 16/- to £1 per day. This showed' that the shop assistants were wretchedly underpaid. Mr Martin quoted several trades which had had increases. These decisions had shown many anomalies. 3J£r, iHarley said that 1 if they based, the agreement on the Canterbury award, which, was not made so long ago, it would be just v to all sides. Mr 'Harley suggested that if the 5 per cent, reductions was cut out, many of the lower-paid workers would benefit considerably. Mr Beck: The position was, would the. employees agree to the Christchurch tiward? If not, then it' was a deadlock. The employees representatives hqre i reared to confer. On returning, Mr Martin stated they could not come to any agreement"; He suggested that' they leave .'the wages advised Mr Scott not to answer them, question, for the time .fteing, tnfa gtf