COUNCIL OF CONCILIATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14981, 29 April 1909, Page 4

COUNCIL OF CONCILIATION.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTING. Mi" J. R. Triggs, Conciliation Commissioner, presided at a sitting of the Council of Conciliation this morning in the general labourers' dispute. The assessors for the workers were Messrs E. Howard, J. Bradshaw and L. It. Wilson, and for the employers Messrs W. Jacques (Christchurch), W. H. Preen (Timaru) and B. Moor© (St Albans). / Mr 'A. Paterson represented the Union; Mr P. Graham appeared for the Builders' Association, Mr W. Pryor for the South Canterbury employers, and Mr H. Broadhead for the Canterbury Employers' Association.

The Commissioner in opening, said that he had intended to refer the case direct to the Court. But ho found since the Auckland decision that he could not do that v Tho Council must go exhaustively into the case and try to arrange a settlement whenever possible.

Mr G. W. Horsloy, representing tho Cbyistchurch Brick Company, applied for exemption, for brickmakers on the ground that they were working under an award.'

Mr A. Paterson, secretary of the Union, opposed the application on tho ground that the award did not cover brickmakers' labourers.

Mr TV.' J. Bardsley, on behalf of tho Timaru Harbour Board, applied for total exemption. He stated that in Otago and Wellington the Harbour Boards' had not been cited, and were not mentioned in the award. Al6o, in the Canterbury traction and stationary enginedrivers' award of February, 1909, the Timaru Harbour Board had been entirely exempted. Mr C. Hood Williams and Mr Cyrus J. R. Williams appeared for the Lyttelton Harbour Board, and claimed exemption oh the same ground. Mr Hood Williams read a telegram from the secretary to the Wellington Harbour Board stating that the Wellington Board had not been cited, and was not a party in the Wellington case. "..'lh "reply to tho Commissioner, Mr Hood Williams said that the Board's labourers worked under the stevedores' award. Mr Paterson said he thought he could bring forward proof that the Harbour Board should not be exempted, but he wished to refer to the matter later in his argument. He thought he could produce a Nelson award including the Harbour Board. Mr R. C. Bishop, representing the Christchurch Gas Company, applied for exemption, on the ground that in the public service the company should have complete control of its employees. The matter was not one of wages, but of hours. A similar application was made on behalf of the Timaru Gas Company. Mr Pateri-on said that the matter had been threshed out exhaustively by the Arbitration Court two years ago, and some exceptions had been made, but the company was bound by the award. Any gas company migb| have to call in its men at any time to effect repairs to its mains, and such permission was reasonable, but that exception was the only cne agreed to by the Union. ' He added that if the company was not under an award it could, wheu extending its premises, employ brick lavers and bricklayers' labourers at day labour, and enter into competition with every contractor in Christchurch. In SVellingtou 10 exceptions whatever were given to the gas companies. Mr Bishop said that in erecting buildings the gas company had been working under the bricklayers award, like other contractors. In reply to a question by the Commissioner whether ap. award could not be made to cover gas company employees solely, Mr Paterson said that the men in that case would have to pay membership fees to both Unions. Mr Broadhead asked for exemption for the South Waimakariri River Board. Ho stated that the Board worked under the Act of 1908. It was practicallv a Government Department, and was "not conducted for pecuniary <rain Mr Broadhead wont on to say that fifteen months ago the Arbitration Court had sat in Christciiurch to hear an application by the General Labourers' Union to add to tho award wool, crrain and seed stores. This the president had described as absurd, and had advised the Union to apply for a special award. This had been "done. _Mr Broadhead went on to quote a decision of the Court that an application should not bo mado to cover general labourers irrespective of any industry or industries, that an award could not be made to applv to labourers'employed by private individuals not connected with industries, and that tho demands of a Union should be made in such a way as to show the particular industries in which anv award had been asked for. The award also stated that it was desirable that the demands should be framed in such a way that different classes of employers who had no common interests should not be brought as parties to one dispute, and that the matters should be made separate disputes and brought separately before the Council of Conciliation. Tho Union, Mr Broadhead added, was trying to build up a strong Union irrespective of tho employers. Mr Paterson, in reply, stated that tho Auckland application had endeavoured to cover many separate industries, such as soap works and freezing works. In respect to the South Waimakariri River Board's,application he stated -that the Meanee River Board was"included in the Wellington award, and it was fair to include all the Canterbury River Boards. If a local body let a contract the contractor had to pay award rates, and the local body should bo compelled to do the f.ame. He know of cases where local bodies paid only 5s a day. Mr Broadhead applied for exemption for the Christchurch Drainage Board. Ho said there was no dispute with the men, although they were not under an : award. The Board_ had been exempted from the enginc-drivors' award. Mr Paterson objected to the applica- ! tion, and said that the Board's employees would be able to tell the Council whether they were satisfied or not. The Board, in doing work by day labour, was competing with tho builders and contractors and should pay tho same wages. . . Mr S. P. Andrews, in claiming exemption for tho quarry-owners, said that they wero already working under the engine-drivers, carters and quarrymen's awards, the last-named covering all the conditions of the general labour-, ens' award. i

Mr Paterson, in objecting to the exemption, said that the quarrymen s award had expired. Some time ago the quarrymen, who were dissatisfied with tlieir treatment, had joined the General Labourers' Union. The Quarrymen s Union was defunct, and as soon as the men had joined the Labourers' Union he had written asking Mr Justice Sim whether a new award could be obtained covering men in tho quarries in Christchurch. His Honor had , replied that the quarrymen's award would stand until tho date mentioned in the award, and then a new application could be made. In Wellington and Nelson the quarrymen had beon placed under the general labourers' award.

Mr F. Thompson, in applying for exemption for tho Christohurch Tramway Board, said that an agreement had been arrived at between the Board and its employees. It covered all tho men aimed at by the General Labourers' Union.

Mr Paterson said that as soon as the Board commenced its extensions it would employ a number of casual men, and he understood that the agreement only referred to permanent men. He

thought that casual men on extensions , should be under the awaTd. Mr Thompson said that it had practically been decided that any considerable extensions would be let by contract. Mr J. Otley, on' behalf of the master plasterers, claimed exemption on the ground that an award existed, and he asked that plasterers' labourers should be included in the next plasterers' award, to get over the difficulty of different hours for the two classes of labour. The ; award would expire in August. The Commissioner said that there would be no danger'of the awards clashing, and when the plasterers' award was made consideration would be made for the conditions applying to plasterers' labourers under the general labourers' award.

Mr W. Dunlop asked for exemption of the Selwyn County Council and the Akaroa County Council, the Springs Road Board and the Akaroa-Wainui Road Board. It would b© impossible, he said, to work under tlie conditions proposed, on account of the extent of ground worked over and the men's isolation. The men could not be paid weekly. Preference could not be given to unionists, because work in the different localities was given to men living there.' Wellington had exempted County Councils. Mr Pryor submitted that in view of the Court's decision in Auckland that a dispute with each class of employers should be made separately and brought separately before the Council, the application of the Union in respect to local bodios was out of order. A dispute should be framed with each class of employers, and the local bodies, which were, not operating in the same way as

contractors, could not be covered by a general labourers' award. The Council and the Union, were bound by the Court's ruling, and he questioned whether, in face of the fact, the Council could go on. The Union should make demands first on the general body of contractors and contracting employers, and then make demands on the other sections. Then the Council could sit with assessors from each side. The local bodies had. no representation on the Council, and their interests were not being represented as they should be. The Commissioner caid that the Union could cite whoever it liked, and the Commissioner could strike out whoever he liked, and he did not think the Council was .wrong in sitting. If he made a mistake it was the privilege of the other side to go to the Court. ■, Mr Pryor said that he did not suggest that the Commissioner was wrong in sitting; but he suggested that the direction of the Court was so clear that in order to arrive at a settlement by the Council it would be extremely desirable to follow that direction. The question was altogether too complicated for the Council to settle. . i The Commissioner said' that Mr Pryor, he thought, had raised the question too ' eoon, and should have waited to see who he was going to strike out. Mr Pryor said that in that caee ho would apply that the County Councils and Road Boards should be exempted on the ground that the Court had never included them. On behalf of the South Canterbury employers and the local bodies, if the Council did not see its way to strike' out the names, he asked that conferences should be ordered between the parties separately. Applications for exemption were also made by Mr Broadhead for the Amuri County Council, Mr F. Horrell for the Mandeville and Rangiora Road Board, Mr G. W. Leadley for the Wakanuii Road Board, Mr J. Lambio for the Ashburton County Council and the Ashburton Borough Council, the Mount Hutt Road Board, the South Rakaia Road Board, the Coldstream Road Board and the Upper Ashburton Road Board, Mr J. H. Sharp for the Riccarton Road Board, Mr C. W. Comer for the Halswell Road Board, Mr G. S. Hickman for the Kowai Road Board, Mr R. Macintosh for the Mount Ashley Road .Board, Mr 0. F. Clothier for the Waipara Road Board, Mr J. M'Cormack. for the Waimakariri-. Ashley Water Supply Board, Mr J. R. Thacker for the Okain's and Le Bon's Road Boards, and Mr W. G. Lunri for the Ellesmere Road Board. Mr R. Evans, on behalf of the Water Boards, Road Boards and Drainage Boards in the Ashley County, ■ and the employers of labour in Rangiora, claimed exemption on the ground ' that country, and town workers could not work under the same conditions. He asked that a sitting should be held at Rangiora when evidence was being taken. Mr Lambie asked that evidence should also be heard at Ashburton. \ Mr Broadhead, on behalf of tbar shingle-pit owners, asked for separate conditions to provide that drivers and workers in the pits should have the same hours.

The Commissioner said that they could have a representative at the hearing. Mr Paterson, in reply to a statement made at a meeting of the Ashburton County Council, stated that the dispute was in no way a sequel to the farm labourers' dispute. Dealing with the applications of Road Boards, ho said that some of the Boards claiming exemption, notably Riccarton and Halswell, had for two years been working under a general labourers' award, while Avon, Spreydon and Heathcoto were apparently content to work under the award. ■. >'.' '

Mr J. H. Sharp said that the officers of the three 'Boards mentioned wera engaged on Road Board elections. They I had understood that nothing would ,ba done, and that tho matter would go before the- Court. , , Mr Paterson said that he hoped tha question of exemptions would not be I'e-opened. Mr Pryor said it was clearly understood that the claim for exemption was for local bodies generally. Mr Paterson was proceeding to argua the questions when the .Commissioner said that he would adjourn the sitting; " until three o'clock to decide upon thai, exemptions to be made. ' j Before rising, Mr Paterson agreed on the suggestion of Mr Pryor that a. clause > should be inserted exempting ' existing contracts. On resuming at three o'clock, th« Commissioned' said that he had considered the claims for exemption and! had decided to exempt the following :-rHarbour Boards, the Christcnurchi Tramway Board (on account of an agreement having been arrived at), County Councils, Road Boards, Town. Boards, River Boards, and the Wai-makariri-Ashley Watei* Supply Board. The following applications for exemption had been refused:—Quarries, plasterers, gasworks (provided the exceptions were allowed as at present), bookmakers, Borough. Councils and Drainage Boards. / In reply to Mr Paterson, the Com;missioner said that Borough Councils would include the jDhristchurch CouTOiLT : ~ '' Pryor said he had conferred with. Mr Paterson, and probably -they could arrive at a basis of settlement apart from the Council. Mr Paterson offered to take the Wellington award as the basis, and if the Council would adjourn the parties could talk the matter oven and, he thought, come pretty near a settlement. He would be quite prepared to have the Commissioner sent. The Council then adjourned until 10 a.m. next day; '- A conference was held later in the day by the parties, the Commissioner being present, and all the clauses were agreed to with the exception of three, which will be dealt with this morning,