ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11870, 23 January 1902, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

:';. -■■'",'. '.'.,'' '.'»*/.;'. .."■ .' TO INTERPRET THE MINING- AWARD.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

[BY telegr aw.- - correspondent.]

Paeroa, Wednesday. A. special sitting of the Arbitration Court eras held hero to-day owing to a request from the Waihi Company, asking ioi an interpretation, of clause 1 in the recent award jjiven in connection with the mining dispute. Mr. O. Rhodes represented the arhi Gold Mining Company, and Mr. O'Keeffe (president) and Mr. J. Hardman (vice-president of the Minors' Union) represented that body. The plaint was as follows:—"Whereas, by an award of the Court of Arbitration dated October 4, 1901, it was directed, inter alia: (1) That the week's work for all men employed in or about the mine, other than surface labourers, shall be 46 hours for men working day shift and 47 hours for men working night shift, including eribtime; and for surface labourers 48 hours, exclusive of cribtime. 2. That in batteries a shift shall be eight hours, inclusive of cribtime; and whereas no provision appears to .have l>cen made in the said award for .the case of mechanics, such as carpenters and fitters, working day shift only on the surface, and it is not certain whether such men aro included in the terms surface labourers in clause 1 of the said award, the Walla Gold Mining v Company, Limited, being one of the parties to the saidaward, do hereby apply to the Court for the interpretation of that- part of the said award 1 hereinbefore set forth, and for the amendment thereof, if necessary, for the purpose of fixing the hours to be worked by mechanics, such as carpenters, working day shift only on the surface." Mr. Rhodes said that in clause 1 of the union's demand they asked for certain hours, for all surfacemen, viz., eight a.m. to four p.m., and on Saturdays two hours less. The company thought it was quite clear "that these hours referred only to men on tVto surface not working shifts, because the, hours for men working shifts had been pjsejriously defined by this union. The term Surfacemen would therefore include all Jbcanches of labour on the surface not- working- the round in shifts—that is, surface labourers, carpenters, fitters, and other mechanics. .In clause 1 of the award the Court deaXtvwith the hours of labour as follows— TbS> week's work for all men employed in and a/oout the mine other than surface labourers /shall: consist of 46 hours for men working* day shift and afternoon shift, and 47 hours for men working night shift, including, the customary allowance for crib-time," etc. Two classes of workers only seamed to be provided for men working the round in shifts and surface labourers. Tbfcy contended that the latter term inoluded mechanics. Rut mechanics had claimed to work only the same time as men wonting the round in shifts, namely,' 43 hours, and for this reason, the interpretation of the Court was required. They thought it was clear, first, that these mechanics, if they were to be included in clause 1, must come tinder the term surface labourers, as they did not work the round in shifts, but were oil day work only, a condition which the union had admitted to be preferable to working the round in shifts. Secondly, that if 43 j hours were upheld as a week's work at the mine, this would be two hours less than the same men would work in the batteries, i.e., 48 hours less three, and four hours less than they would work for a contractor in the adjacent townships. Thirdly, what had been laid down by the Court with regard to surface labourers applied by analogy equally: well to these mechanics on the i surface. The Court said: " The surface labourer employed about a mine is not, in our opinion, in any practical essential different from the general labourer upon the road or earthworks, and we are unable to agree with the 'contention that because tho hours for underground workers aro less than those on the surface both classes should be put on the same footing." If the term " surfacemen," .; as specified in the original demand,' had 'been used in the award instead of " surface labourers," no interpretation would have been required, and even now they think nothing further was needed than the alteration of the . word " labourers" to " men." But if the Court decided to make any; difference in favour of mechanics they suggested that tho ordinary hours, as defined in the Court's , other awards, be laid down, keeping in. view | tho fact that these mechanics working under cover were really on the . same footing as those who-worked in factories, i.e., had no broken time, and this amendment should apply both at the mine and battery. They understood the hours of such men had been generally fixed at 47 per week, exclusive of moal time. His Honor said that the Court, in framing the award, were very careful in stringently limiting the hours of surface labourers to 48 hours, and 'he was surprised that any interpretation of the clause was required. The award clearly stated 46 for those other than surface labourers working in and about a mine, and 48 hours for surface labourers, and in order that there might be no misapprehension the rate of wages to each class was also stated. The surface labourers were fixed as a certain class, and were dealt with specially. The Court intended to put fitters and carpenters on the same basis as miners working in and about the mine. Mr. _ Rhodes interjected that in and about the mine might mean battery also. His Honor, in reply, pointed out that the Court had provided specially for batteries. Carpenters and fitters were, according to the award, to work 46 hours per week, exclusive of crib, when working day shift, and surfaec labourers 48 hours. Tins, he thought, was very clear. Mr. Rhodes said that men would really only work 43 hours per week, whereas ot-bei men working; for another employer within a short radius of the mine would work 47 hours. His Honor said that they had nothing tc do with other employees. He thought , that the award was very clear, and it meant what it said. Mr. O'Keeffe then said that in face of thai interpretation he would like to say that since the award a very largo number of men, carpenters and artisans in the batteries, were kept working in "crib" hours, and ho would ask if the Court would make provision foi those men. Mr. Rhodes at this junction rose and said it would save the time of tho Court perhaps if he said that there were certain men-who had worked 48 hours per week since the award, but as now the clause in question had been made clear those men would lie paid fully for the overtime worked during the period in question. Mr. O'Keeffe then asked the Court if a printer's error had not been made in the number of hours that surface labourers should work, namely, 48, to which which question His Honor replied that no printer's error had been made. The Court said 48 hours, and it meant 48 hours. • This being all the business the Court rose.