Wellington Storemen

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 294, 18 October 1922, Page 3

Wellington Storemen

Messrs. H. -Dyson ana A. i\lonteith represented the Wellington Sioremen's.Union in y, dispute concerning wool, hide and grain-V/oi"k- vers which, came before the Ar^i-; 1 "*- ---tion Court' daring its VVeli ng;.on sittings.

The union asked for a slight increase i,u wages, njainely from 2/i& per hour to 2/S; for .casual workers, and, from £4/11/6 to £4/15/- per week for permanent hands. The asked that the rates be 1/6 per hour and £3/2/0 per week respectively/The union asked for ithe retention of the ii hour week. Tli o main argument of the employers' representative wvis that there were -so many unemployed that wages should bo reduced.

Mr, Dyson stated in Ms opening -address that the difference betweeu the parties as regards -wages was so great thai little could bo expected in tho. way of ,A.n agreetnenc in this regard However, seeing that most of the existing conditions wevn those. wiu-jl: had been established and in operation even before the iin'oh was formed., it seemed clear that it would be a waste o? time to travel again over tlia- we.'ll-worn path. On the court's suggestion the New Zealand Storemeu's Federation (which represented all tho storemn's unions with the excsnton ot Ciinterbury) had arranged for the expiry of the awards-on a siaiuitiineous date, so that, the case could be deis.lt with on a Dominion basis. As £ar as Uie federation itself was concerned this was the first case to come on. and the cptirt would bo asked to hear the other applic-ations in other centres. Mr. Dyson drew the court's auction t o the fact that i n July last liy made an earnest c'ndeavour tx> arrange a .Dom'itnion conference, at' 'which he had hoped conditions could have been mutually agreed upon, but thirf was not entertained by the employers: , It would als o be seen that tlio Conciliation Council proceedings had abortive. There wore fairly wide differences 3 "n the respective claims apart from wages and the status of casual . employees. There was not a. great deal of difference in the union's claims and the existing award, anil when they considered the largo proportion of casual labour <epa-I>Loye-l in these stores, together • tha smooth Vorklng of the industry in tl\'j inv-ui he submitted that there was no reason why any important changes should bo made in the existing conditions." If the employers were really serious 5n their claims they were certainly unreaspnjable.-, Mr. Dyson conheader! that a certain amount of skill was required of sforenien, and they should bo paid accordingly.

During Mr. IMonteir.h's cross-exam-ination' of one of the employer's witnesses 'the judge elegantly referred, to ,h f s method as that of .a "soap-box-orator."'