THE BAKING TRADE DISPUTE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1354, 10 February 1898, Page 13

THE BAKING TRADE DISPUTE.

AWARD OF ARBITRATION COURT. At the Parliamentary Buildings on Thursday the Arbitration Court delivered its i reserved award in the dispute between the Bakers’ Union of Wellington and two master bakers (Messrs William Tonks and William Isaacs). Mr Justice Williams i and Mr R. Slater were present. The other , member of the Court, Mr H. Thomson, was ; absent through serious indisposition, i The President (Mr Justice Williams) ; said that in the dispute between the Bakers’ Union and Messrs Tonks and : Isaacs the Court had come to a decision and its award had been prepared and signed. He was sorry to say, however, that in the case of the dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and , Joiners and the Builders and Contractors’ Association the Court had not been able to come to a decision, owing to Mr Thomson, i one of the members, having been taken ■ seriously ill on Wednesday night, and his ■ not having been able in any degree to , attend to business or to discuss anything, i Mr Thomson probably would not’be able to do so for a day or two at any rate. That ■ being so, it was impossible to give a deci- , sion in the building dispute then. It was equally impossible that he (the President) should stay in Wellington until Mr , Thomson had recovered. His Supreme Court engagements compelled him to go South on the following day, and to remain there. Therefore it was proposed to i give judgment in the building dispute in Dunedin, and *x> forward the award to Wellington. Mr Thomson, it was hoped, would be able in a few days’ time to go down to Dunedin to discuss the matter with the other members of the Court. In the building case the Court would therefore stand adjourned till Thursday, the 17th instant, at Dunedin. In regard to the baking dispufe he might shortly state that the a tvard of the Court followed in most respects the line of the industrial agreement which was entered into between the Bakers’ Union and the Master Babers’ Union. It differed from it in one or two particulars. It embodied a provision for those who were not competent to earn a minimum wage. It struck out the provision of the agreement that an employer shall not work in his bakehouse before 4 a.m., but it embodied a provision that no baker or workman shall commence work before 4 a.m. Tim other difference between the award and the agreement was that the award did not give a preferential right to unionists in the case of Messrs Tonks and Isaacs. It simply provided that they shall not discriminate against unionists, and shall not do anything to injure the Union. In making this provision the Court had followed the course it had hitherto adopted where shops had not previously been union shops, as neither Mr Tonks’ shop nor that of Mr Isaacs had been. Mr Isaacs was included in the award, but, so far as he (the president) understood, the award would not affect his operations, as he did not employ outside labour. However, if he did employ outside labour, he would come within the scope of the award. The award wou?d terminate with the industrial agreement. The award, which was read by the president, is as follows: “ 1. That nine hours and a half constitute a day’s labour, including one half hour for breakfast and one hour for sponging. 2. The rate of wages shall be as follows: — Foremen, not less than £3 per w<eek, with 13 loaves; second hand, not less than £2 10s per week, with 13 loaves ; and any others not less than £2 5s per week, with 13 loaves. All hands to receive dry pay. 3. Tradesmen not fully competent by reason of age or physical weakness may be employed at such wage as may in each case be settled between the Union and the employers. 4. That no baker or workman shall commence work before 4 o’clock in the morning, except Saturdays, when he shall not commence work before 2 o’clock in the morning. After the stated hours are up, overtime shall be paid as follows : —Time and a quarter time up to half-past five o'clock in the afternoon, and time and a half time after half-past five o’clock in the afternoon. 5. That no apprentice shall be allowed to any employer unless two bona fide journeymen be employed. If four journeymen ba employed, then in such case the employer ! may employ two apprentices. But in no case shall the employer employ more than two apprentices. Each apprentice to;be under IQ years of age when bound, and to be bound by indentures for a period of five years, the indentures of apprentices to be produced to the secretary of the Union if required. 6. Jobbers to receive 103 per diem of nine hours and a half, and overtime as above stated in clause 4 hereof. 7. Sunday sponging shall cover all statutory hoHdays as expressed in rule 24 of the Union. If workmen requested to work on holidays they shall be paid at the rate of time and a half. 8. That no carter shall be employed in any bakehouse. The respective positions of a baker and a carter shall be kept separate. 1 Either an employee must be a bona fide baker or a bona fide carter, but a baker may deliver bread so long as he does nob work more than the prescribed hours. 9. That neither of the employers shall discriminate against members of the Union, nor shall either of them in the engagement or dismissal of their hands, or in the conduct of their business, do anything directly or indirectly for the purpose of injuring the Union. 10. That each of the employers in carrying on his business shall I provisions, and |

shall conform thereto and the JUnion and every member thereof’ shall be bound by the same and shall conform thereto in like manner. 11. The provisions of this award may be enforced from Monday next; the 7th of February, instant, until the 24tb day of November, 1899.” The President added that costs had been asked for by the Union. Mr Andrew Collins (President of the Union): I have something I would like to say— The President: The case is closed, sir. We have considered the matter, and we do not think this is a case for costs. We have never given costs up to the present. It is highly probable, however, that we shall have to consider the question of costs in the future. But in any case, before giving costs, we should make some public pronouncement of our intention to do so. Mr Collins said he had to thank the Court for the latitude allowed him in conducting the case. Speaking on behalf of the Union, he could say that its members would loyally work to the award. Mr Tonks returned thanks on behalf of Mr Isaacs and himself.

The President said the Court quite understood in these cases that the parties were not accustomed to argue matters. It was the simple duty of everyone to sit patiently and listen to what was brought forward on both sides.