ARBITRATION COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 16842, 28 April 1915, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT.

WELLINGTON TALLY CLERKS CASE,

AN AWARD REFUSED

[Feb Press Association.] Wellington, April 27

I The Arbitration Court today was engaged' in investigating the conditions oi" the employment of ships' tally clerks and shipwrights in "\\ ellington. Mr R. A. Simpson appeared in support of the application for an a.ward in the case of tally clerks. Mr W. Pryor stated that he represented every "Wellington employer of tally cierKs. Before going into the merits of any dispute he a«ked the Court to hear the application that no award be made. The union was composed of but a small minority of those who acted as tally clerks on the wharves, and a petition had been prepared by men regularly employed' against any award., there being no real difficulty between them and the employers. Mr Simpson stated that the petition was unfairly taken round during working hours,' so that men who signed it felt that their bread and butter was in jeopardy. It was contrary to fact to represent that members of the. union were not regular tally clerks, and unfair' to suggest that the. union was not entitled to the protection of the Court. The award was wanted for casual and not permanent employees. After hearing evidence as to . the formation and composition of the Tally Clerks' Union, Mr Justice Stringer, President of the Court, announced:—- " Wo havo given this matter careful consideration, and we have come to the conclusion that in circumstances that have been proved before lis this is a case in which we should exercise the jurisdiction given to us by the Act, and refuse to make an award. That being so, it will only be an unnecessary waste of time to hear evidence on the part of the union. It is an important principle, and 1 shall take an opportunity later on of putting my reasons in writing, so that they can be placed on record'."

In reply to Mr Simpson, his Honor said that if tho union became fairly representative of the industry nothing now decided would prevent a case be'ng presented to the Court later on.

THE WELLINGTON SHIPWRIGHTS

APPLICATION TO AMEND AWARD. The Arbitration Court also heard an application on. behalf of the employers to have tho Wellington shipwrights' award amended in regard to wages and overtime. Mr W. Smith appeared in support of the application, Mr E. Kennedy for the Union Company, and Air Marehbanks for the Harbour Board. Mr Smith explained that it was desired to havo the rate for overtime clearly stated at time and a quarter and the award applied to the casual workers employed from day to day and hour to hour. Tho clause regarding apprentices also needed amendment.

Thomas master shipwright, stated that tho present wa.<rss came to, £3 9s 4Jd for 4->| hours. The rate was Is (3d an hour, but 3d per day was added, and for the time mentioned the equivalent of 48J hours was paid for. . Twenty years ago the wages were-£2 10s-per week. Previous to the strike some of his men averaged £4 4s, and one rea.ched £4 13s. . The work to be done now was less skilled than formerly. For the most part what had to be done by a shipwright was known as '"' dirty work," and the claim of the union for ■'dirty work" was'regarded as. sin indirect method of getting wages increased. Mr JLarehbanks here made formal application for the exemption of the Harbour Board from tho award so long as regular rates were paid, and the application was agreed to. T. T. Birkett, naval architect and shipwright, ga.vo evidence. He had never heard of any extra being jiaid for dirty work. ■ Ernest E. Stonebanks, manager of the Wellington Patent Slip Company, produced a statement of the wages recentlv earned bv employees. Thev ranged from £3 4s lOd to £4 Ss 7d. U i.i stated that tho . same, amount of .skill was. now required of shipwrights as formerly.

Mr Smith put in a statement of the wages earned by shipwrights employed by the Union Steam Ship Company-at Port Chalmers. At Is 7d an hour they ranged from £1 17k lid to £3 os 6d. The wage-earners in "Wellington, ho said, at Id per hour less., amounted to considerably more. Those employed'by the Union Companv had received from £3 8s od to £3 los.

After hearing the evidence of men employed in different yards, the Court reserved judgment.