ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13484, 10 May 1907, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

TRAMWAY GRIEVANCES. -'.': CLOSE OF THE COMPANY'S CASE. •"' • DECISION RESERVED. v The hearing of the industrial dispute be- &"'■• tween the Auckland Electric Tramways Employees' Union and the Auckland Elec;;?V trie Tramways Company, Ltd., was concluded before" the Arbitration Court yestera'iiv. Mr.' Arthur Rosser, associated with Messrs. R. Breen (of Dunedin) and P. C. Buckley (president of the union), appeared r- '' - for the men. Mr. W. Scott, of Dunedin, H appeared for the company. : Cross-examined by Mr. Rosser, Mr. Chamberlain, engineer for the Christchurch Tramways Board, stated that a fair margin to set apart for depreciation in connection ,: with a tramway system was from six to * seven and a-half per vent. In future it £■„■* would be necessary to set apart this - amount for depreciation in New Zealand, : •• as otherwise money would have to be borrowed for New Zealand. ;■ ■ Dennis E. McCarthy, foreman of the track employees, stated that the wages of ;;, . a truckman averaged £2 lis 3d per week. At the request of Mr. Rosser, Mr. Han- ■'.'' •' sen, managing director for the company, ' was recalled in reference to his statement '-;•-1 on the previous day that the company had ■:■■ '■■: ■: between 300 and 400 applications for em- '■:/; ployment on their books. In reply to the men's representative Mr. Hansen admitted, notwithstanding this, that the company advertised two months ago .for v number of men. The reason for this, he said, was -v because the company wished to get a number of suitable men for conductors, and i- these had" not been applying lately. On ':; the morning following the day on which '••':' the advertisement appeared he found between 80 and 90 men standing outside his office. Altogether about 100 applied, and : : i of these, he believed, six were accepted. i;. Mr. Scott stated that on going into the question of firemen with the management, and comparing respectively the conditions here as compared with what prevailed in v ' the South, they found that the men here were not so well off. There were three i shifts of two men each employed in firing . at the power-house, and the company was now prepared to pay the man in charge of each, shift an extra shilling a day. As regards the second man on each shift he was purely an assistant, and the company was ;-'.'.;" not prepared to grant him more than he ' , was getting. "-'V ,;v : Mr. Scott thereupon closed his case. He submitted that the union had absolutely, failed to show, why the existing .*', conditions should.be altered.. Referring to the telegram which appeared in yesterday's Herald, giving the reply of the Mayor of Wellington to the assertions which Mr: . Scott made the previous day in connection with the Wellington tramway . agreement, he repeated that when the agreement was brought into force it put £6000 a year extra on the system when it was nofpay- ■? •'.. inc: He would also repeat that it was done for political purposes. Referring to the men's demands for special privileges, -' 'Mr. Scott said the employers were becoming alarmed at the. bringing in of matters ;' outside the Act, and were only awaiting '•' an opportunity to bring a test case for-. '.'. ward. In connection with glass fronts the ;' company was prepared to make the experiment of putting these on new cars in the ;-'\ future. 'There were difficulties in the way | , -- , of putting them on the rolling stock which they had at present. ■ Mr. Rosser submitted that the Court had jurisdiction in regard to. the special privileges claimed by the men. The men's demands were modelled on the so-called »,' '"political agreement" -which had , been made in Wellington. He submitted that the increases made in this were justified,^ . and contended that if the Wellington men were entitled to higher wages the Auck- ' land men were even more so, as their work was much harder, the grades being steeper. i .. ■.' ..in d i heavier..;■ qgl 'S\as Court reserved its decision. -.■"-,"'■:. --'. '"COOKS AND STEWARDS' ',' CLAIM. - -'."NOT' PROPERLY BROUGHT, ; ■ . " ,'■'■"''. FORWARD. An application for a fresh award was • '" made by the Auckland Cooks and Stewards' Industrial Union. Mr. W. Jones, of Wellington, appeared in support of the . men's claims. Mr. W. Scott, of Dunedin, ;i :. appeared for the Northern Steamship Company, the Settlers' Steamship Company, , ' Leyland and O'Brien, Parker, Lamb, and • Co., and the Union Steam Ship Company. • ' 1 Mr. Scott asked that the Court should investigate the conditions under which the dispute was brought forward. The reason lie asked this was because the union was asking for the rates and conditions where .' there was only one cook for the crew, as on -;the intercolonial boats. The companies ; felt satisfied that their employees could not 'he asking for such a thing, and wanted to ' "';•■'- know whether the proper procedure had ■", been observed in approving of the demands by special meeting and subsequent ballot. '■ Mr.. Jones called Henry Banfield, secre- ■'-, tary to the union, who stated .that a meeting to consider the demands was held on /?; September 29. They were approved. Subsequently a ballot was taken and a confirmatory meeting was held in October. He :.;■_» .—produced the minutes. : ;'•■/ . ( The Court on examining these minutes, found that they were not in order, and ' that the ballot was taken on a- differently- . worded resolution from what was on the -' .— minutes. ~ ' '■ , In reply to Mr. Scott witness stated that copies of the demands of the union were not sent out with the circulars convening '•;■... the meeting, but that these were handed round and perused when the meeting was . > held. .'-'''../"'.,. ..;• ..

The Court adjourned at halt-past twelve until a-quarter past two p.m., in order to enable Mr. Banfield to produce a copy of the notice by which he convened the special meeting. '.'.-: •' . : On resuming, Mr. Jones stated that the secretary was. unable to find a copy. All tie (the speaker) could say was that it was gross carelessness. The way in which the minutes were written up was simply scan-. , Mr. Scott submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction, as the proper preliminaries nad not been observed by the union. The men were not forwarded copies of the demands, as he contended should have been •-"one, and the ballot was taken on a different resolution from what was on the minu-

cr} 1 Jones contended that the proper resolution was not placed on the minutes. • ,» ♦? nor said it had been already held i? *• ,°, urt that strict compliance with sections 105 and 106 of the Act was neces- ' ,y A in order to give the Court jurisdiction ill deal with industrial disputes. The rey roiution on the circular on which the ballot •iVtf n was not the'same as was passed tt * wie special meeting, and upon this pound alone the Court held that the Act ; •- ad not been complied with. It was also Necessary, in order to dive jurisdiction, ,nat the result of the ballot should be. rehVi on the minutes. This, however, v« a ~,n ot been done. As regarded Mr. I ocott s other point, His Honor stated that ;■., . *ne Court did>not think that'it was necesf '■ : sary to send out a copy of the demands S ct the union with the notice convening the ?? fecial meeting. All that it was necessary {° do, in regard to this, was to give memo's notice of the meeting, and of what it •■ »■ as proposed to do. As the union had wiled to comply with the Act on the other P'oimds. the Court had no jurisdiction to i • deal" with the dispute. ll,'- »lr. Jones asked whether if lie got an- '■ other ballot taken by Tuesday the Court °uld hear the dispute at its present sittings. His Honor paid the Court proposed to | Auckland on Wednesday, so it could I got do as requested. It would, however, ti-WsF 1 '", >' hold another sitting here in September, v The Court adjourned until ten o'clock ; ;j this morning. III:. '': . : ''■i?^.--^ : :;;'■■:■■.',;:■■'■:■: