CONCILIATION BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11557, 19 April 1898, Page 3

CONCILIATION BOARD.

THE BOOTMAKERS. The Conciliation Board mot at the Land Board Office yesterday morning; present— Messrs W. H. Cooper (chairman), T. Gapes, J. Greig, T. Williams and J. Chalmers. The meeting had been called to consider a dispute in the bootmaking trade, the Bootmakers’ Union having filed a statement asking that Messrs N. and J. Suckling should be called upon to come before the Board, they having declined to agree to certain conditions under which tho other firms in Christchurch were working.

The operatives were represented by Mr John Barber. Tho Clerk of Awards read a letter which he had received from Messrs Suckling Bros in reply to the notice to attend before the Board, declining to have anything to do with the matter, and stating that they would not be bound by any award of the Conciliation Board,

After some consultation amongst tho members of the Board. Mr Barber said that Messrs Suckling Bros had been parties to an award which had lately expired, and which they declined to renew, and the Union was compelled to bring the present case to prevent that firm doing anything further detrimental to that Union. His Society wished the case referred straight to the Arbitration Court, which would shortly sit in Dunedin in connection with other cases in the hootmaking trade affecting Christchurch firms.

In reply to questions, Mr Barber said he was not prepared at the moment to adduce any evidence. As Messrs Suckling had not put in an appearance they wished the case referred straight to the Arbitration Court.

The Board discussed the question as to whether it could refer the matter to the Arbitration Court without going into the case, as it was evident at the outset that it would not he able to bring about an agreement, and both parties to tho dispute appeared to wish to go straight to the Court. Mr Barber made a formal application for the Board to consider the case, and it was ultimately decided that the Board should report to the Arbitration Court that it was unable to bring about a settlement in the dispute.

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS. The Canterbury Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Union applied to the Conciliation Board for directions as to the powers of the committee set up under the award to deal with the rate of pay of non-unionists. The Chairman decided to hear the application. Mr A. P. Talbot, secretary of the Union, said that the Unions concerned in the award had submitted the names of two men who were unable to earn the minimum rate of wages, to the committee appointed to settle those matters, but the committee had declined to deal with it on the ground that it had no power to deal with non-Unionists. The Unions held that the agreement fixed the terms and conditions under which employers, who were parties, should employ carpenters and joiners, and that they were dealing with the employers directly, who were infringing the agreement by acting contrary to its provisions. At tbe request of the Chairman, Mr Talbot submitted the following question in writing;—“ Is the committee of employers and workmen to decide the rate of wages paid by employers who are parties to tbe agreement to men who are non-Union-ists ?” The Chairman said that the matter had been considered in committee, and it was decided that the committee had the power. Mr Talbot said the Unions held that it was mandatory. They had surrendered the right of striking, which had hitherto been their only means of defence, and accepted this award in its place. They submitted that they had a right to demand that it should be carried out in its integrity, and that the committee could not refuse to deal with these matters if they were placed before it. Clause YI. laid it down that Unionists and nonUnionists were to work under the same conditions and receive equal pay for equal work, therefore the status of tbe unions was clearly defined, as tbe award applied equally. The Unions considered that the committee must deal with nonmembers, and asked if the Board, which was practically a superior court to the committee, held that it must also. The Chairman said “Yes.” Mr Talbot thanked the Board for its consideration and courtesy.