ARBITRATION COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11555, 16 April 1898, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

ENGINEERS' DISPUTE

The Arbitration Court, presided over by his Honor Mr Justice Edwards, sat at ten o’clock yesterday morning, when the hearing of the engineering dispute was continued.

His Honor asked Mr Fraser if he could state the respective numbers of Union and non-Union workers in the engineering trade in Christchurch. Mr Fraser said he could give the number of Unionists, but the Union did not concern itself as to the number of non-Union men. Mr Booth pointed out that the evidence had shown that the number of Unionist engineers in Christchurch was sixty-six. He would be able later on to show the number of non-Unionists. Mr Fraser said that members of the Marine Institute, which was afiiliated to the Union, had not been included. The land Unions controlled the marine men when on shore, and the marine Unions controlled the landsmen when at sea. Frederick Beckett, fitter, -was called by Mr Fraser to give evidence in respect of the class of work done at Mr Banks s establishment. Witness had been employed off and on by Mr Banks for the last ten years on general engineering work. There were a lot of boys in Mr Banks’s shop who assisted witness in a class of work which the ordinary engineering apprentice would have to do. Two engineers were employed there, one of whom was a fitter, the other a turner. Witness considered there were too many boys in the shop to learn their trade properly. To Mr Booth: Could not name any marine job he had done at Mr Banks’s, but had seen marine valves come into the shop for repairs. Mr Banks had built a wellsinking engine for his own use. Witness had fixed up churns for the dairy factories, a boiler for the Central Bairy Factory, and a gas-engine for the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, on behalf of Mr Banks. In respect of the gas-engine at Kaiapoi, all witness did was to erect the engine and put it to work. „ , , , Mr Scott stated that his firm had done all the engineering work in connection with the gas engines mentioned. Henry Beighton, a turner who had worked nineteen years in Christchurch, had worked with Messrs P. and B. Buncan, who turned out some of the best engineering work in the colony. Witness was at present working at Messrs Anderson and Co.’s where six lathes were at work. Two of these were worked by journeymen, one by an improver and three by boys. Witness considered there were too many boys employed in the trade for their own good or that of the men who worked with them. To Mr Fraser: Under existing conditions eight apprentices would be turned out as journeymen within five years. For these

to find employment in the shop where they were trained would mean sweeping out the foreman and the four men who had taught them. J. Chalmers, fitter, recalled, said that Mr Banks had done engineering such as engine brasses and cocks for the Tramway Company. The proportion of apprentices to men in the Addington Workshops was one to four. Frederick Beckett, recalled, examined by Mr Banks: The gas men did the pipework in connection with the engine which he Mr Banks; You lifted the engine out of the case and scraped the white lead off it. Is that so ?

Witness: I put the engine up. Mr Banks pointed out that whenever he had specific engineering work to do he sent for Beckett to do it. As a rule, he had no occasion to employ an engineer. This closed the case for the men. Mr Booth opened the case for the masters, and recalled N. Orton, a previous witness, who stated that at present there were sixty-six Union men in the district, thirty-five of whom were employed at the Addington Workshops. Excluding those employed at freezing factories, there were, he would say, seventeen or eighteen Unionists employed in the private shops. Witness was aware that skilled mechanics, were engaged at cycle work, and fitters and turners were employed, but the Union had not cited cycle manufacturers, as that was a separate trade. A man who had learnt his trade in a cycle shop would not suit the Society witness belonged to. A coachbuilder’s blacksmith was a skilled man and eligible for membership in the Union to which witness belonged. The witness quoted from a London return ‘ wages of blacksmiths 38s to 48s a week, fitters and turners 38s a week, pattern makers 40s ; Nottingham pattern makers 38s, all others 36s ; in Glasgow pattern makers 365, all others 34s 10id. In Grantham, an agricultural implement centre, the ruling wage was 34s a week. His Honor asked how the wages paid in England would affect the wages here. Mr Booth said he had an object in asking these questions, as New Zealand manufacturers had to compete against these wages. Witness continued : At Colchester, near London, the ruling wage was 30s a week, for planers and borers 26s a week. Most of these wages were for a week’s work of fifty-iour hours. To Mr Banks:- There were no brassfinishers on the books of the society in Christchurch. Mr Booth said there was not much of the evidence led by the other side which could be answered specifically. All the evidence led was to support what needed no supporting, viz., that the Unions themselves controlled the rate of wages, No attempt had been made to prove the individual worth of the men employed, and from what he (Mr Booth) had seen, no evidence had been brought forward to show that the men were worth more than they were getting. The masters were not fighting for'a reduction in wages, the men were the attacking party, and as such ought to prove their case. The masters were fighting for the continuance of the trade which they hoped to keep alive, and he hoped to show before he had. done that the interest of the men was also involved in this. He called

John Anderson, who with his family had been carrying on an engineering business in Christchurch since 1850. At present they worked eight and a half hours a day for five days and four and a half hours for one day, making a week’s work of forty-seven hours. He had never heard any dissatisfaction expressed by the men either as to the working hours or wages. The men themselves had arranged to work the extra half-hour a day, so as to make the hours of work as nearly as possible forty-eight hours a week. Eight hours a day had been the rule of the shop since 1850, and since 1870 the halfholiday had been inaugurated. The witness did not consider eight and threequarter hours too long for a man who was employed watching a tool. No man, with machinery, could turn out as much work in forty-four hours a week as he could in forty-eight. His father, who was a working blacksmith, worked twelve hours a day. for'a long time in the early days of Canterbury. Forty-four hours a week would mean the loss of the machinery for four hours. If the hours were reduced his firm would, under the ordinary conditions of time, only work the forty-four hours. A purchaser who wanted a piece of machinery here would look up English prices before he decided whether to buy an English or colonial article. He did not know of a turner to be got in Christchurch at present. (Mr Booth: The cycle shops are absorbing them all.) The proposals of the Union meant a substantial increase in wages, which his firm could not afford, with the class of work they did. That is, they could not pay out of profits. Clients would not stand higher prices than now charged. The firm to which witness belonged was quite willing to pay good men 10s a day, but inferior men were not worth ss. He judged of the worth of a man by what his output' would realise in the market and by his knowledge. An increased price all round would diminish his business, while a lowered price would induce more business. His Honor said he would like to see the wages sheet. Mr Booth undertook to lead evidence as to the average rates of wages paid, and to produce all wages sheets if necessary. In reply to a suggestion from his Honor Mr Booth undertook to provide a return showing wages actually paid, and those which would be paid under the Union proposals. There was, however, a return prepared by the Labour Department, for which employers showed all wages in detail. It took one of his clerks a fortnight a year to make out the necessary return for his shop. The witness continued that he had no recollection of concerted action in 1882 to reduce wages. If the clause with regard to young journeymen were carried out, a large number would be out of employment. The demand as to limiting the number of apprentices was the most illiberal he had ever heard of. We had here the exceptional circumstance of the excellent School of Engineering at Canterbury College, the pupils of which had to get their practical training in the shops. There was no limit to the number of boys a foreman could instruct provided the work and appliances were there. The Colonial apprentices compared favourably with the English. He handed in a list of all apprentices who had served their time at the Canterbury Foundry since 1887 and showing the positions to which these had afterwards attained. The trade was certainly not overstocked with first-class men. When the men belonging to his firm went to work at the Lyttelton branch they were paid money actually out of pocket, but lost their time on the return journey. He never knew which were Union men or which were not previously to the sitting of the Board of Conciliation. Speaking in general terms, he would not say that the Union men in Christchurch were steadier than the nonunion men. His firm was constantly in competition with Dunedin and Wellington, but latterly had not been successful there. It was a fact that a portion of dredging machinery, with which work the Christchurch and Dunedin shops were familiar, had lately been let to Australian contractors at a lower price than his firm could have done the work for. Four Dunedin firms had tendered for the work. His firm imported certain goods from England and America which could be manufactured here but for the cost of production. He referred to traction engines, shafting, pulleys, bearings, &c. To Mr Scott: Quite recently prices had been obtained from the Christchurch shops for a boiler and hydraulic press, and the orders had been put in hand by Messrs

Tangye and Co., of Birmingham. Except for dairying and' mining, there was a duty on the importation of these. To Mr Waymouth: It would be impossible for the freezing companies to carry on business under the altered conditions as asked for by the Union. To Mr G. Anderson: The refrigerating' companies sent much of their work to the town shops. In fact, the assistance of the town shops was necessary. The witness looked upon freezing work as identical with marine work, in that, owing to the perishable nature of the goods the machinery had to run day and night, Sundays and all. The factories shut down for two or three months during the year, and paid their engineers all the time. Witness knew that the manager at Islington was anxious to get all work done locally whenever possible. Cross-examined by Mr Eraser: Since about 1870 the arrangement of the work had never been questioned by the men. Witness worked like an ordinary apprentice until he got into the drawing office, when he had the afternoon for study. He was about twelve months in the fittingroom, but had done no turner’s work. The business had been raised from a blacksmith’s forge to its present state. Witness’s father had made capital by his industry and diligent care and attention. His father by working overtime when the hours were ten a day had saved the necessary amount to bring his family out here.

Mr Fraser said he wished to shew that there was enough profit in the business when the business of Messrs Anderson and Co. could rise from a blacksmith’s forge to the very creditable dimensions it bad now attained. The witness continued that in his opinion the average apprentice out of his time was not as profitable to an employer as the average experienced journeyman. It was, however, possible that an apprentice who was kept constantly at his work might become almost as expert as a journeyman. Witness considered that the night shifts, when intermittent, were worth 2s a night extra, but that was not so, in his opinion, when the night work was regular. He considered that refrigerating work was work for an engineer. A fair average for the number of fitters and turners in his shop might be five. Under favourable conditions he could carry out the work of building engines, &c., in competition with Home firms. All local industries had to be established in the teeth of such competition.

Mr Waymouth asked that the Freezing Companies should be excluded from the award, or that failing that a special award should be drawn up. Tire Legislature had specially exempted the Freezing Companies from the Half-holiday or Factory Acts, and he thought it was only by a mistake that they were not exempted from this Act. B. F. Glass, chief engineer of the Belfast Freezing Works, had occupied that position for twelve years. During that period the refrigerating engines had been constantly at work. It would be quite impossible for the freezing works to be carried on with forty-four hours’ work per week. The men were thoroughly satisfied with their wages, and there had been no dispute with them. There was only one refrigerating engineer employed who was a member of the Union. The Union demands would mean an advance of 30s wages per week to each man in the refrigerating department, or an advance of 50 per cent on the existing rate of pay. .Mr Waymouth said that the yearly wages sheet of the Belfast Company amounted to .£20,000. This was by far the largest item of expenditure the company had, and it was upon this that the increase was proposed. In reply to Mr G. Anderson, the witness said that refrigerating engineering was as distinct from ordinary work as electrical engineering, and he did not see what the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had to do with it.

Replying to Mr Booth, the witness said that three of the refrigerating staff had been trained locally. He himself-had been trained at Glasgow, and was of opinion that the average New Zealand apprentice, having more all round-experience, was superior to . the average apprentice at Home. Mr Fraser said that the Union was willing to except the chief engineer in each factory.

To Mr Fraser: The engineer who gets off on Saturday works sixteen hours on Friday. He does that voluntarily instead of taking his ordinary shift, and working continuously eight hours a day. The factory had machines for their own repairing work, and kept men to do it. Witness did not consider a boy could be, efficiently trained at the factory. It took good practical men to do the work, and witness employed the best men he could get. The work to be done was work for a mechanical engineer. Knew of the rule between the Marine Society and the land Unions, which had been mentioned before.

To Mr G. Anderson: Thought if w frigerating engineers wished to join a union, they should form a union of their own.

Mr Waymouth said that this was the; only witness the refrigerating department intended to call.

Mr Booth called John Lee Scott, who«aid that he had carried on the engineeringtrade in Christchurch since 1871. The menin his' firm worked forty-eight hours a week.; One man had expressed dissatisfaction l with this, as the tram service did not suit him, and since then the question had been' remitted to the men themselves, who had decided practically to adhere to the old 1 arrangement. The ordinary working-day at 1 Derby, England, where witness served Ms time, was ten hours, but it was the usual! thing to work two hours overtime. Did not consider an apprentice just out of his time was worth within 10 per cent of an average journeyman,and he couldnotafford to pay such an apprentice 9s a day. If such a minimum was established the’ apprentices and inferior hands would have to leave. The present state of tbe trade; did not warrant an increase of wages. They had lately been offered several pieces! of machinery for the Christchurch Meat Company, at prices wMch would compare, with imported machinery, but could not; undertake it. The average rate of wages in England was 5s per day; add to that 30 per cent and call it 7s 6d a day here,; and they could compete with the English manufacturer. It had never been the practice of witness, nor of the trade, to Ms knowledge, to reduce wages when the trade’ struck a bad time. Their present prices were based on the English price lists l , rather than on cost of production. As proof of tMs, witness stated that Ms . firm had just built an engine for the Kaiapoi Woollen Factory at a loss of .£ISOO. The firm made it more for an , advertisement than for profit. Where his firm had built locomotives they had an advantage ®f 25 per cent over the landed cost of the English article, and then there was not much profit in the work. The witness handed in Government returns, showing that at Addihgton, where there was no charge for the use of macMnery, and where the average wage earned was 8s lid per day, the cost of a certain class of locomotive engine would be .£4200 as against the Home article, which could be landedin New Zealand for .£3150. He considered it wrong on principle to limit the number of apprentices to any trade. At five o’clock Mr Booth intimated that he had three more witnesses to call. His Honor said he had .to leave on Monday morning. Would Mr Booth be prepared to attend the Court on Sunday ? Mr Booth had no objection to do so-dl such was the desire of the Court. His Honor said that the Court entertained no such desire. 5 They had, however, better .finish with the present witness. At 5J.7 pin. the Court adjourned until.lo a.m. this morning.