COMPARING AWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13483, 9 May 1907, Page 7

COMPARING AWARDS.

;■..,-. Continuing, : Mr. Scott stated that the Punedin men v. ha had been working under an. expired award also mad© similar demands, while the Christchurch men, who had no union, had one immediately formed. The Court heard the Dunedin dispute last , year, and after mature consideration made ■ an aWjrd upon exactly the same line* as that existing in Auckland. Although there was undoubted friction during the strike, the relations here now between the men >(»:* the company were of the most cordial . character.,, A'-- showing the interest which the company took in the men's welfare, ' Mr. Scott stated that they had been instrumental in initiating a benefit society. The 'fen alSo had a social hall, and had been lielped; to get together football and trii.it clubs and a. brass band. He submitted th.it the men were at present re-, iiinnjj fair remuneration for the work performed, those employed being mostly drawn from the ranks of" the labouring classes. .• ■ Preference was given to farm labourers, liprse ' drivers, stewards, . and sailors, and could it be said, he asked, that in these trades the men employed could possibly earn as much during the whole year as those on the trams? It showed that the Wellington wages were too high when V tradesmen were throwing up their work to .. enter into the tram service. Last week, ,'' according to a newspaper paragraph, there . were no fewer that 3500 applications for employment in the .Wellington service, which showed that- the earnings were higher thiii* those of tradesmen. . : -'!*'. Slater: Does not that show that • work is slack? : -Mr. Scott: No; it shows that they are clamouring to get 011 the trams. '■■ Their earnings per annum in Wellington are actually greater than those of engineers, carpenters, etc. . Sir. Siater: Yes but the motormen put in more time. . . ' •■

MEN BETTER OFF THAN BEFORE. Mr. Scott went on to state that the men were better off in the tramway 'service than , they were before. Half of " Mr. Rosser's '-'..'. witnesses had admitted that after leaving J . 'no ■•crvice they tried to get back again. • - "the men's demands were granted it would, H'<in an increased expenditure of £16,230 Per annum. He wished to protest, on behalf of the employers of the colony, against the Arbitration Court, in connection with tramways or any other, trade, .granting pay, for work which, was not done to men who were in receipt of payment for overtime. ■He referred to the claims for seven days' ' holiday on full pay, payment for stoppages, . such as on Sundays, and for spare list men . tot reporting. "He submitted that the Wen's demands for glass* fronts, seats, and °ther special privileges did not come within too definition of industrial matters under 'he Act, and therefore were outside the Court's jurisdiction. If the Court had power to order glass fronts to be placed °h the cars, then it would have power to , oiaer dwellings to be erected for the men, w "ich be contended the Legislature never Wended. ■ His Honor: We cannot interfere directly,' "M wo can indirectly by awarding higher '"ages to men working on cars.' which have "o class fronts. Mi- Scott submitted that these \*<ere i purely .questions of tramway management, throughout America, the United Kingdom, * ncl Australia, tramway managements' of 0 *! not permit » lass fronts, on account / ?' the greater liability to minor, and, per- :;" *?P®« serious accidents. The same applied with regard to seats, it being ■ con-■ ;«nued that with them the men had less control over their cars. ; : ;' r ';', Y.; .\ v His Honor: I s your company prepared "' try the experiment of seats, - apart alto- > gether from the award? ■■! Mr. & ?- : Yes, they had intended to 1 -> i-o; t but while the company, is preP* r "«. to meet' the, men, it has an "Ejection to being tied down hard and fast "J" the award. lirir 1 Houor: Arties can do more by ttgwement than the Court can by award.,;

'Mir. Scott then dealt briefly with the men's demands. . .Referring to the question of hours, he stated that while the company had no; wish ;to work a inan beyond 10 hours, yet it did'not wish to be tied down, as an emergency might arise at anytime. : The company ' wished to stand by the old award in its entirety, and wished an addition made, whereby the Court re* served the right to exempt the company from any award in which it might be made a party, and if necessary provide for all workers in; the -service of the company under one award, as it deemed fit. Referring to the preference clause, Mr. Scott pointed; out that the Court rejected the men's demand in 1904. A DUNEDIN WITNESS. Charles F. ; Alexander, ' traffic manager of the Dunedin City Corporation Tramways, stated that he; had had previous experience in connection with the working of trams in Brisbane and Glasgow. The award recently given in Dunedin was practically on the same lines as that which the Auckland employees were at : present working ; under. So far as he knew, there had been 'no dis,satisfaction. If ;an award, such as the Auckland men claimed, were; made against the corporation in Dunedin, it would mean an increase in the wages of motormen arid conductors of £2573 7s 9d. He could riot say what would be the extra cost as regards the other branches -of the service. When employing motormen he generally preferred to,. take .them from the farm labouring class. Stewards; made the best conductors. A motoi-man could be taught ;in a fortnight. He did hot think that the men here were justified in asking for double time on Sundays. In Dunedin the men only got time and a-half, and the work was easier on Sundays than on week days. ■ Mr. Rosser: Is it because farm labourers are more intelligent that you prefer them for motormen? ' Witness: Oh, they are.certainly not so sharp. <■-■ • ■ "'. -" - : In ■-.. reply to further questions, witness I said they only had six spare list men in ! Dunedin, as compared With - 60 in Auck--1 land. There were, however; more cars here:/■'/-' Glass' fronts were provided on the Dunedin cars. His Honor: Would you recommend that the company here should have,glass fronts and seats for motormen ?.. ... . Witness: In my opinion, they should. MR. HANSEN IN THE BOX. ■ ': Paul M. Hansen,* managing director for the company, corroborated . Mr. Scott's statement with' regard to the men being better off under the electric system than under . the old horse car system. When the Wellington \ agreement was arrived at general discontent was caused among tramway employees throughout New '.: Zealand. The company was always receiving applications for employment, and now had between 300 and 400 names on their books. The company paid 7 per cent, in dividends last year, 6 per cent, the year before, and 4 per cent. 5 the year before that. He considered that a fairer return for the undertaking would be from 8 to 10 per cent., but he was afraid they would . never reach that. - Mr. Scott: Have you estimated what it would cost the company if the men's demands were granted? * Mr. Hansen : Yes. I have had a statement prepared, which shows* that the increased cost to the '*■ Company would be £16,238 per annum./ The increased wages demanded involved £6000, a week's holiday - on full pay to each man £850, extra payment to spare list men- £2340, oilskins and mackintoshes £190, double time for , Sunday work £2360, payment for time for ■ men proceeding to their work £650, weekly tickets to employees in their own time £1800, and £1890, roughly, for putting glass fronts on cars. For the upkeep of these glass fronts it would also cost about £150 per annum. - ~ , • Continuing, witness stilted v that as regarded the dust question, the company had now entered into an arrangement .with the Auckland City '; Council - and three other j local bodies .to. provide /electric water sprinklers. When these got working the nuisance would soon be reduced to a minimum. . ' Five local ./bodies/ were standing out of the / agreement at present, but he I thought they would come in later. He did not think the men were justified in asking la increase per day all round. The conditions now were also better than.they J were when'tlib' last aWard'was made.'" """'; 22,000,000 PASSENGERS A YEAR. The public at first were not used to electric traction, Mr. Hansen went on to say, and whereas 4,500,000 travelled on the first year that the service was in operation, 22,000,000 per annum were carried now. When the service was stopped during church hours the company was quite prepared to pay those men who were not at the depots. There was between;' 370 and 380 men in the company's employ. The company at present supplied the conductors ' and motormen with uniforms, but not with oilskins and mackintoshes. Switchmen and trackmen were, however, supplied with oilskins. The men as a rule liked Sunday work and often asked for it. The company was prepared to provide seats for motormen on condition that certain regulations to be drawn up were observed. a direct stipulation was made by the Court that seats should be awarded there would be a prospect of the men abusing the privilege, and the company therefore objected' to" any such' order being made. He was very much against glass fronts being provided, believing that they would prove a souce of danger, both to the motormen and the public. Oh two occasions motormen had bent over the front of a car and picked up children, who must have been run over had these cars; been fitted with glass fronts. He preferred that all" complaints should be given in writing. ;,',: Mr. Rosser: Now, Mr..Hansen, has not | your company gone in for record-breaking i with; regard to the. number of passengers carried Witness : Oh, I don't know about record- ' breaking. 'It has just been the ordinary increase from year to year. .-■-■. v.j Continuing, witness said the total profits / in 1905 were £25,000. Of this sum £14,000 was allowed for depreciation. He did not consider this sufficient. On Queen-street the company had already paid £16,000 outside of the original construction. The total capital of the company was £650,000 ; in 1905, about £4000 was" paid to the City J Council in percentage of profits, street rent and rates. He did not approve of the preference clause. ;'. EVIDENCE FROM CHRISTCHURCH. Frederick H. Chamberlain, .engineer for the Tramway Board in Christchurch, stated that he had been engaged in, building, and operating tramway systems ,-, for 16 years, both in Australia and America. He preferred farm hands for motormen. He considered that the; men at present were well paid. Spare men were necessary, and the number required depended on the system. He did not know of any cars in the States which had glass fronts except those which ran 40 or 50 miles an hour. The reason for providing glass front:? on* the cars in Christchurch was because of ilio cold easterly winds. It costs them ?in Christchurch £2 per- car per . year for the maintenance of glass fronts. He believed in seats for motormen, bub thought that certain conditions should be imposed. There were grades in Auckland on which it would not be safe for motormen. to be seated. : ". v .,/-■;.,■ The further hearing of the dispute was adjourned until this morning. ' THE WELLINGTON TRAMWAYS. DISCLAIMER FROM THE MAYOR. [Br TELEGRAPH.—PRESS , ASSOCIATION-.] /-/; Wellington, Wednesday. To-day's Press Association, telegrams from Auckland include one giving statements made by Mr. Scott, on behalf of the Tramways Company at Auckland, in which there is reference to a sum of £6000 being loaded on to the Wellington tramway sys- ■ tem. The Mayor of Wellington says that' this is contrary to 'fact. The rateof pay in Wellington, he points out, from its first inception, was higher than/that paid at Auckland, which, the Tramways Committee of the Wellington Council and the Council itself unanimously held was a meagre rate. .-..',. '