ARBITRATION COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12539, 28 June 1901, Page 2

ARBITRATIO N COURT.

SITTING IN CHRIST CHURCH. Tie Arbitration Court resumed its sittings in Christchurch yesterday, before Mr Justice Cooper (president), and Messrs. S. Brown and R. Slater (arbitrators for the employers* and workers respectively). THE ■ SKINNERS, -TANMtS AND FELLMONGERS. The dispute between, the Canterbury skinners, tanners and fellmongers and a number of employers was called on. The employers were represented by Messrs G. Bowron, W. H. Clark, W; Nicholls, P. Waymoutb and W. Hill,, and the workers by Messrs J. Milne, E. J. Cooksley and J. Carlyle. ' Mr Bowron. continued his arguments, adjourned from last .sitting, to show that the trade would hot be able to stand the increase of expenditure which would be incurred if the increased Wages were granted. Mr Bowron then Went into the witnessbox, and stated that the export department of his -business represented ihore than twothirds of the total volume of the firm’s business. It was impossible for the business to stand any heavy loading, by reason of increased wages or anything else. If the firm was handicapped by the demands of the Union being conceded, there would be an /glternatiye for it, which had been seriously considered, to remove its pelt busi. ness to Sydney or,Newcastle. Tne freight from New Zealand to Newcastle was less than \vhat was paid from various New Zealand ports to. Lyttelton. Labour was cheaper in Australia,. and the freight_ from that country to England, and also insurance and other, costs wef© lesS. :JS th® business was lost to the colony, the low would amount to at least LI4-,OUU a year bis own busmets. There would bo a further less of £7OOO or £BOOO in connection with other labour at present paid, for freight i«uac/es, etc. The total loss would be £15,000. ayear, with £SOOO more if .the firm’s works were trackferrtd to Australia. The firm s sales outside Canterbury amounted to about two-fifths of the total local trade, and the firm was in keen competition with farms in other places. An increase in c'ost in Canterbury would not necessarily mean an increase in. other places, and Canterbury would bo placed at it disadvantage. It was a fact that'in Ghriktchiirch itself many hundreds of pounds! worth of leather came in every month. Tanners in other places had many advantages oyer the tanners in Christchurch. The total increased wages if all the demands of the men (including the curriers) , were conceded, \youid be £BBOO a year to his firm alone. That was taking no account of penalised overtime, nor of the serious loss by the curtailment of the earning-power of the plant. The sum he had mentioned represented wages alone. If the Union’s demands were conceded, the firm’s business in Canterbury would* efirtainy go to the wall. In regard to the cost of living, he said that it was as_ low in Christchurch as in any other part ot tne colony; i Canterbury was not a cattlc-pro-ducino- country, and there was not a go.od local "supply or hides, as compared with that of other provinces. The nebessary importation meant an increased, cost as compared with the cost in. Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, and . Australis*, Besides •ths cost of buying, freight, and so forth, his firm had to purchase through agents, and there was a serums item there, though it could not be estimated in figures. Another disadvantage was the freight between Lyttelton and Christchurch; The Union might Say, that unions would be formed in other places, and the wages there would be raised too. The employers, however thought that that would not happen .until the Union here had become defunct, 'lf the demands of the men were acknowledged throughout the colony, there would arise ■ the grave question as to this colony’s , position _in relation to other countries, especially Australia. 1 In this trade the colony has, to import practically the whole of its tanning material. The quantity Wattlebail produced in Auckland*, was aboiifi one-fifth-of the total use*a . tWte.' Was another disadvantage to the _ Canterbury tanners. With a few exceptions all the tanning material had to be imported. The Australian tanners iiad additional advantages over Canterbury in the Warmer temperature, which greatly assisted all the tanning processes. Tt reduced the cost m production and of labour in handling. To those natural advantages in, Australia, there was the lower cost of such tabuing materials as had to be mported into Australia as well as into New Zealand, The difference in cost would be on the average from 25s to 30s a ton.’ The difference in wages amounted to from 10 to 15 per cent in favour of Australia, as compared with the present rate in Canterbury,, Mr Bowron made a abatement to show the increase in cost incurred by a New Zealand tannery over the cost of an establishment of similar dimensions SAustralia, The. figures 1200 tons of wattle bark at 26s a ton, on* crease £ISOO ; 400 tons* of Valoxna, etc., at 25s a ton, increase £SOO ; 300 cates of cod ol at Id per gallon, £52 ; difference in wages, 10 per cen^ n J 18 f ’ 3 cost of tanning, £500; total ailcreass of cost. £4372. This was equal to Id a pOuna on. the cost of leathers. If, by force of circumstances, there had* to be added the increase of Wages demanded, that departmeat Would be handicapped* to the extent, of £IO,OOO as compared with an Australian tannery of a similar capacity. There would be an increase of 2|d, per pound yn, the whole of the output, , and the Customs duties would not be sufficient to‘counteract .the handicap.. The handicap against the European and American tanners Would* be even greater than that, against Australia. When the other New Zealand tanners had to pay, higher wages; if it came to that, they would' have to* go to w© wail, luce Canterbury, and New Zealand would simply become a dumping ground for Australian good's. The only skilled workers in connection with the trade were the curriers, the hide-fleshers, the bead pner man, the pelt classers, the wool classers, and the skin pullers.

In reply to Mr Waymoutb, Mr Bowron stated; that he did not think the local freezing companies Would be able to stand the strain of the increase in the wages demanded. J. A. Frostdck stated that be was a buyer of leather. He bought a considerable amount of leather from places outside of Canterbury. The quality of the Canterbury article was satisfactory, but the trouble was in regard to the price. If the price of leather was increased in Canterbury to the 1 extent indicated, his orders would go to the cheapest market, wherever it was. If the New Zealand tanners had to raise their prices from 2d to 3d a pound he believed that Ms orders would go to England. The railage and wharfage charges in connection with importations to Christchurch were a heavy handicap to him, and also to the tanners.

In reply to Mr Milne, the witness said that his firm endeavoured to'persuade people to purchase the* local article* in preference to the imported one. He made mow profit out or the latter, and had no option but to sell it.

In reply to another question, ths witness said that the conceding of the Uniortfs demands would cause kips to bo imported from Australia.

Edwin Markea Sleeves, salt merchant, stated that he was the New Zealand’ representative of a* Melbourne firm. The difference in the cost of Adelaide salt in New South Wales and New Zealand was 8a _a ’ ton in favour of Slew 6'outh ..Wales.

Coarse salt in .London was 10s '» ton cheaper than in New Zealand. If English salt was used, the difference would be 25s a ton. , ; In reply to bis Honor, the witness said that the cost of salt imported into* New Zealand was 8s a ton More than in New South Wales, but 12s % ton less than in Victoria. , „ John Arthur Henderson stated that be was o-eneral manager in New Zealand for Henry' Markwald, of Melbourne, a dealer in chemicals, oils, and other articles. Ihe cost of importing valonia, sumach and other articles used in tanneries would be about 22s 64 a ton more in New Zealand than in Australia, owing to the freight and other ©barges for handling. On the average the freight from Europe to Australia was lower than from that , country to, NoW Zealand. The tanners in this colony paid about £2 a ton niorc for sillphuric acid than did the tanners in Victoria. Arthur William Winter, a mercantile clerk employed by Messrs Dalgety and Co., stated that his firm had 1 had an experience 'with woolsdburers for many yeats. That experience* had led to instructions, being given, from the bead office not to finance* such 'businesses as those of fellmongers. Although fellmongeiy was a profitable business, iso long as things were running smoothly, it was a risky one. In reply to Mr Weymouth, the witness .teid that it was the competition of the English Article, on Which ite tvork was done, that caused the business to be risky. In reply to Mr Milne, he said that the firm’s action Was not taken* with the idea of shutting out the small man. , „ lt . Edward George Wood, manager of the ■Wbblston Tannery for, Messrs Bowron Bros., stated that, he had had experience in the tannipg trade in both New Zealand and England. He thought that the position of those employed' at the Woolstoh Tannery had improved during the last few years as compared! with the position ten years ago, as there were more places at which they could obtain employment. The rate of wages', however, had not increased. The bulk of work in connection with a tannery was not particularly heavy or dangerous. It was absolutely incorrect that men at the Woolston Tannery bad had to wait 'thirty minutes to receive their wages. Every morning and afternoon the men ’were allowed from ten to*, fifteen minutes to smoke or have lunch. On the Average, they had from fifteen, to twenty minutes off during the day. The custom of giving the men that time for recreation, was hot observed at Home. The trade was a healthy one. The accommodation for dining at WoOlston was good. A diningroom was not necessary. . ■ ~ His Honor said that ( he hadi visited the Woolstoh Tannery the previous day, and, whether it was due to the men or hot be could not say, but some of the, men were certainly taking their lunch under adverse cirtmimtahcet. '

In reply to Mr Milne, witness said that accidents had occurred, at the works, but they were oh account of carelessness on the part of the Workers. The Wages had not been either increased Or , decreased during ' the last twenty years. He could not say whether the men were justified in, asking for. ah, increase in wages, as he didr not khoW, what profits,the masters Were making. He thought that the demands of the men Were ohtrageous. James Tterise, foremeni of Messrs BOW- ' fob’s Ferry Road Tamnbry, stated that there Were only two of three branches of the trade in Which the* Work could hot be discharged with a few weeks’ experience, by a, person coming straight off the street. During recent years the rate of wages had not been decreased. Boys were paid according to their ability* hot according to their, age.. Robert Dixon, foreman of the tannery dh- * partraehib at the Islington* Freezing Works, said that in. only one or two branches .of tile trade w«s skill required. , He did not think that general fellmongering Work* leaving out the pulling, was worth more thah ordinary labouring work. He did.hot think that the freezing companies could pay the Union’s demands and still continue the fellinongering departments. , In reply to Mr WaymOuth, be said that a log which might be applicable to an ordinary felhnongery would not necessarily suit the fellmongeiy at freezing Works. Hewitt Morgan, foreman of the dry goods shed at the Belfast Freezing Works, said that it would be impossible to regulate the killing to suit other departments. The men were paid ini the company’s time, and were sent down to receive their wages when it was convenient, to send them. He thought that the men at Belfast were paid over the Union rates,, and Were Well treated', and When .the Union men approached them in regard to the matter, they said they did not see what ■benefit would accrue to them by the Union’s actions. .

Ini reply to Mr Cooksley, the witness said be thought that the rate of Wages the men at Belfast were receiving was* at anyrato the principal reason for their refusal to join in with, the Union*. There might have been* other reasons.

Lewis Smith, a skin-puller at the Belfast Works, said that from about the middle of January to the middle of April he earned on the average £4 a week. He had hot much to complain about in regard to tough skins. During the last few years there * was nothing to complain about at all. He had sometimes pulled 400 skins is eight hours. Thomas Curkan, foreman of Messrs Webster 'and Co.’s tannery, said that a man could) be taught to do work about the tannery in about a Week. Those men would not be m responsible positions, as the foreman would be over them.

• Henry Bell, foreman in the chrome department of Messrs Webster and Co.* stated that in finishing chrome leather he did; not receive any assistance from the curriers. The trade was , neither dangerous nor Unhealthy. Joshua Oliivcr, in charge of a hydraulic press at Messrs Webster and Co.’s, said that it took him about a week; to become acquainted With the work, though h© had some ©zperience in that direction before. He thought that the work was dangerous. George Thomas Jowers, foreman of the Wool-drying paddock at Mr W. H. Clark’s wool scouring establishment, ©add that the work of wool-drying could not very well be regulated, au a .great deal depended on the weather.

The Court adjourned till 10.30 next day.