ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12817, 17 March 1905, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS' DISPUTE. The hearing of the carpenters and joiners' dispute was continued at tho Arbitration Court (sitting in St. Andrew's Hall, Lower Symonds-street) yesterday, beforo Mr. Justice Chapman (president) and Messrs. Brown and Slater. Tho evidence on behalf of tho union was continued. Walter Punch, carpenter and joiner, said he received £3 for a week of 47 hours. Ho had received more from some employers as a joiner than as a carpenter, but had never received less. Ho had been an indentured apprentice, and lie believed in that system. Personally, ho could do with half the present number of statutory holidays, but out of consideration for others in the trade ho would not favour reducing the number or allowing men to work for double pay. Ho thought that there should be a fixed rule as to holidays. He thought thrco months was a fair term of probation for apprentices. Ho would be agreeable for apprentices to be transferred from one employer to another if tho parents and the boy consented. John Deady, carpenter and joiner, and a factory hand, said ho worked 47 hours a week for £2 14s. He had had about 14years' experience. He had come from England three years ago. He thought it absurd that joiners in the mills should receive less than men- outside. In the Old Country he had frequently received 2s, and sometimes 2s 6cl a day extra, with train faro added, for country work. He believed in indenturing apprentices, and he considered that this system, if the employers could only see it, was as beneficial to their interests as to those of the apprentices. He had not been indentured himself, but the conditions under which ho learned his trade were tantamount to an indentured apprenticeship. His experience was that indentured apprentices obtained the standard rate of wages when they came out. He had been working in the Premier Joinery Factory for nearly two years, and had got an increase of 6d a day without asking for it. When he wont into the factory he did not intend to remain there, but at that time he had found a difficulty in obtaining work outside. John Pitcaithly, Henry Bamfield, and Arthur Rosser also gave evidence in support of the union's demands. This closed the case for the union. Mr. S. I. Clarke, in opening on behalf of the Master Builders' Association, pointed out that if an increase in wages was made it would cause a good deal of hardship to some, and would in tho end have to be borne by tho public as a whole. In rogard to the first clause of tho dispute ho was not going to offer any remarks at all. As for clause 2it was really ono which affected tho claim more than anything else. If there : as one thing which builders disliked to do more than anything else it. was to reduce wages and to cut their men down. Their policy was to treat their men as fairly as possible. But the point was as to what the trade could afford, and as to whether an increase in wages would have any bad effects. At present times were slack, and it would therefore bo better under such circumstances to let well enough alone. They therefore asked the Court to carefully consider tho whole of the circumstances of the case. Although there was a difference of Id an hour here as compared with what was paid in other centres, those places wero still dearer to live in. There were various reasons why tho trade should not be disturbed in that way, as the Court would hear later on. With regard to clauso 3, which related to overtime, the master builders thought that they should not be compelled to pay a man double time between the "hours of seven and eight in the morning. As for overtime on Saturdays the employers thought they should not pay more than they did for overtime upon other woelc days. Regarding clauses 6 and 7, they raised no objections, but as for clause 8 they thought that if clause 20 of tho existing award were substituted it would be better. Clause 9, relating to incompetent workmen, was, however, the principal bone of contention. It had been stated that the employers had shown a strong dislike to employ incompetent workmen, but that was not so. What thoy advocated was that there should be a legal distinction fitting in with the distinction in mankind in that respect. They agreed to clause 10. In regard to clauso 11, they thought that the radius fixed was altogether unsuitable. Clause 12 was agreed to. As for clause 13, they thought that clause 16 of tho old award should bo inserted instead, as they thought it unfair that employers should have to tender all over the place. Clause 14 would be agreed to. As for clause 15. he would leave Mr. White to deal with that. The general opinion was that it was inadvisable to take on apprentices, as boys learned better by their hands and heads than by deed of parchment. At this stage the Court adjourned until half-past ten this morning. His Honor intimated that he would not take the breaches of awards to-day, but on Monday. [3t TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION".] Hokitika, Thursday. Tiie Arbitration Court gave judgment today in the disputes between tho Blackball miners, Recftou miners, Dcnniston miners, and engine-drivers and their respective employers. The Court resolved to make no award in connection with the "bank to bank" clause, considering it would have an ill-effect. The result of this action is that the existing award will remain in force. In the case of a claim Voeassovetch v. the King, for compensation of 30s per week for life for injuries caused by plaintiff falling and breaking his collarbone, when repairing a telegraph line, the Court held that the offer made by the Postal Department of £18 15s (which was refused by tho plaintiff) meets the case, and gave judgment for that amount, each party to pay its own costs.