CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14982, 30 April 1909, Page 3

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

■GENERAL LABOURERS’ DISPUTE. The bearing of the general labourers’ Industrial dispute was continuod before the Conciliation Council at the Supreme Court yosterday, Mr J. It. Triggs, ■ Conciliation Commissioner, presiding. Mr Robinson, a master brickmakor, that the brickmakers would not object to being included in tho award 'if an award was made, provided that the men affected were those engaged on new building work. Mr Horsley said, that in the case of work now in progress the brickmakers would be seriously inconvenienced. - The chairman said that the interests of brickmakers'would be looked after . by the Council and a clause would be inserted in the award to cover the point./ The Council then proceeded to consider the question of wages. Mr Paterson said that he would agree to a clause that the tunnel men should be paid 10s por shift of eight hours. The clause would not affect Canterbury to any extent, for very little tunnel work was done in the district. Tho clause would only affect men working on permanent tunnels. Mr Graham said that the Builders' Association, objected to the clause relating to wages. The matter was already covered by another award. In reply to a question, the chairman ‘ said that if the dispute was referred to the Arbitration Court the Council would not sit at Timaru. In regard to the hours of work, Mr 6. H. Andrews said that in the case of quarries an exception should be made. The hours of work were governed by the delivery in Christchurch. The mon worked in harmony with the drivers, who were allowed to work between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. under their award. On Saturday it was frequently . desirable that tho men should work. ' •Mr Paterson quoted the clause in the Wellington award which stated that the hours could be fixed by each employer to suit his business, but tho total hours should not exoeed forty-eight a week and not more than Si hours, on Are days and not more than 5£ hours «• Saturday. ' ■ v . i Mr Andrews said that, he wanted the -restrictions removed from Saturday*. . Mr Broadhead said that the position of the shingle-pit workers was the same. Mr Pryor said that the clause had l been accepted by the. South Canterburyemployers, but an exception could be •made in regard to quarrymon and shingle-pit workers. ' \ .Mr Paterson said that the hours were the same as those worked by builders. • >Mr Andrews said that tho quarry- - owners were willing to pay overtime for , Saturday work'over tho 6i hours. .Mr Bishop said that ad exception would have to be made in regard to the ' - Gas Cqmpany. It wanted the privilege to be able to work forty-eight hours, and under the present award the . men were only able to- work forty-four hours. ' The men would not thank the Council for cutting down the time. He did not object to the half-holiday on Saturday, but he wanted forty-eight hours to constitute a week’s work. The Council then returned to the . : question of wages. Mr Pryor suggested that the Wel- , lington clause should bo adopted, mak- !. ing it IQs per shift for tunnel men and /. timber men and 9s per shift for other men working underground, the men to be paid for tho actual time worked, j'- The Commissioner suggested that the tunnel workers should be paid Is 3d /per hour and the other workers underground Is IJd per hour.' . Mr Paterson said that the xenced man did the hard, wet, dirty work/while-the man .with a little more ■‘ experience had am easier time. He d. thought that the men should- get the same wage. X! - Mr Graham said that previously the labourers had asked that experienced 5 men should be paid more. 1* Mr PateTson said that) the idea then -had'-been to obtain an increase for as many men as possible, but he was sorry that' it' had been done. The first claim by the Union was , that all men should be paid the same wage. * i The question was left to the asses- • «ors., ■ 1 Mr Andrews said that on behalf of the quarry-owners ho asked that the X rate should be Is an hour instead of Is Sd per hour for' powder men, hammer ' and drill men, quarrymen, crusher men, spawlers, platelayers, tool sharpeners '-and asphalt makers. / 1 Mr Pryor' quoted the Wellington country award which'fixed , tho wage at Is Id per hour for powder men, hammer , and drill men and jumping men, and Is for other workers. Mi- Paterson said- that Mr Andrews hod said that the mon in a quarry were two steps above general labourers, then why did he not agree to pay them more than the Is an hourP Mr Andrew® eaid that the men were '■ paid higher wages when they were do>ng special work. He would agree to the clause quoted by Mr Pryor. Mr Wilson suggested that the rate of Is 3d could he reduced to Is Id for the workers enumerated in the Union’s ' claim..

Mr Pryor said that the whole matter turned on "the rat© of pay for unskilled workers. It would be better to deal with the unskilled workers first. Mr Paterson said that the Union would not agree to less than Is ljd per hour. If the Council wished evidence, he eoukl produce it, to show that . the present wage of Is per hour was not a fair living wage. The general labourer’s wage was not £2 a week on an average, and, he always lost a great amount of time every year. The extra 1 id "would make a big difference, and it would not affect tile public and employers to any extent. • Mr Pryor said that facts should be taken as they found them. The present award, fixed by agreement in 1006, made the minimum wag© Is per hour. The country was then in a prosperous state, and the onus was on th© ■ Union to prove that the conditions of , life had changed. In 1907 the Nelson award was made, fixing the minimum wage at IOJd per hour, and in the same year the Dunedin award adopted the'same* rate. Last year in Wellington City, as far as general labourers were cdnsiderod—and the Court held that wages should be higher than in other centres—the rate was 8s for eight •houra’ continuous work. In the Wellington country districts the minimum rate was Is. When it was plain that the employers to-day could not pay wages as ’well as they had paid them a ▼oar or so ago, it was clearly ridiculous'to ask for an increase on , the minimum of Is. Lie could not agree to more than Is per hour as a minimum fate. Ml* A. D. Dobson said that if the increase were made the increase on the rates would' bo £3OOO or labour to that amount -would be thrown on the market and under the present, conditions that would not be to the benefit of W< Mr Paterson eaid that the'labourers ©n the waterworks were paid out of •pecial loan. ► Mr Dobson said . that £25,000 was '.voted. for the labourers doing ordinary j W< Mr Graham said that the building trade had not been as dull as now for ten years. Many builders were carrying on work at a .loss to keep good men with them.- They could not agree to an increase. Mr J. Otley, on behalf of the master plasterers, objected to any increase in the wages of plasterers’ labourers’ -wastes. .Ilf Paterson said, that the Union

recognised that it had been unfortunate in taking tho dispute before the Council when things wore slack, but the trade was not going to be elack always. Mr Paterson agreed that tho award should not apply to any work done iu the ordinary course of farm-work. Mr Dobson, in regard to the exemption of. the City Council, asked that the conditions in the old award should bo retained. He asked the Council to consider the question of relief work. The men who were given relief work were generally unused to rough work. He suggested that <m. arrangement should bo made whereby the secretary of the Union could arrange with the local authority to pay lower wages for relief work. The exemption of a local body in regard to sanitary work was in tho Dunedin frtvard. Mr Paterson said that he could not agree to the exemption of the City Council in regard to sanitary work. The Council then adjourned till 2 p.m., when the Commissioner and assessors met in committee. AN AGREEMENT ARRIVED AT. A COMPLIMENT TO MR TRIGGS. At the conclusion of the sitting of the Council, in committee yesterday afternoon, Mr J. R. Triggs spoke to the representatives of the parties, and told them that an agreement.had been arrived at, and,, that the dispute was practically settled. The official result, lie-said, would be delivered at eight o’clock on the following evening. Mr Triggs, when seen by a reporter last evening, stated, that lie could not make known any of the decisions that the Council had come to. The Council’s findings would be made known to the parties on the following night. Mr R. C. Bishop also said that he could not give any of the details of tho agreement arrived at, though ho knew that the dispute had been settled. Mr A. Paterson, the Union representative, said that ho did not know the decisions of the Council officially, and he could not divulge them until they had been officially declared. The dispute had certainly been settled, and Mr Triggs deserved great credit for the manner in which he had conducted the hearing of the dispute. 'Mr W. Jacques, one of the assessors, said that the dispute, though practically settled, was not completely done with yet, and he would not care to say anything about the agreement or tho details of the settlement. When the result was made known to the representatives yesterday afternoon, opportunity was taken to congratulate Mr Triggs and the assessors on the Tesult of the Council’s hearing. Mr R. C. Bishop moved that a hearty vote of thanks should be tendered to Mr Triggs for the able manner in which he had conducted the hearing of the dispute, and to tho assessors. He said that throughout Mr Triggs had spared no pains to bring the matter to a successful conclusion, and by his tactful methods he had done a great deal to secure a settlement of the dispute. He had not spared himself nor his time in assisting them to arrange a settlement, and he had sat long hours. The motion!was carried. A tribute, was then paid to Mr A. Paterson for the able manner in which he had presented the Union’s claims and the conciliatory spirit in which he had met the representatives of the employers. It is understood that a compromise was arrived at in regard to Mr Paterson’s claim that the Union would not agree to a minimum wage of less than Is lid per hour, but nothing definite concerning the. decisions could he obtained last night.