ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1648, 30 September 1903, Page 22

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Chapman and Messrs R. Slater and W. Scott) sat on Friday to review the cases filed for decision.

The sitting was field in a room at the Wairarapa Farmers’ Association Buildings, and it was crowded to a degree that was absolutely scandalous. There are several better halls in the city that could -be obtained for the sittings of the Court, ana it would be we'll if oiiie of them was secured. ENFORCEMENTS OF AWARDS. It was announced that a settlement had been made in the application for enforcement of award brought by the Bootmakers’ Union against W. and J. Staples and Co. Mr Cooper, secretary of the union, announced that the firm had remedied the matter, and had paid the costs of the Court and two guineas to the union. The trouble was one of employing too many apprentices. COOKS AND STEWARDS.

The Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union took action against the Union Steam Ship Company for enforcement of an award. Mr W. Jones appeared for the union, and Mr J. H. Kirby for the company. Mr Jones called Mi- Kirby in support of the application, and examined him as to the hours worked by the cooks and stewards on an excursion trip of the Tarawera (011 New Year’s Day, 1902), from Auckland to the Heads and back. Mr Kirby deposed that the men who sent in applications to the Wellington office were paid overtime for the trip. This offer was made by the company (this year) in a general letter. Mr Jones informed the Court that the amounts paid to the men were not the full amounts claimed. There were some of the mien in the company’s employ still, and even those had not been paid, though the company knew where the men were. He did not- blame the Wellington manager (Mr Kennedy) for the laxness that existed in such matters.

Mr Kirby explained that the nonpayment of the overtime had probably been caused by a misunderstanding of the agreement entered into. Witness

could not say if any attempt had been made by tlie company to settle the matter before the union took it up. There was a dispute jis to the amounts due to the men. Witness put in a letter from a steward which stated that he had been paid in full for his overtime worked on the Taravera. Vouchers from other men, showing payment, were also put in. Mr Jones objected to the letter hieing accepted by the Court; it had been wrung from the men under fear of their losing their bread and butter. Sundry other breaches, of a minor nature, were investigated after this by the Court-. the questions concerned being mainly in reference to- means of calculating overtime and as to what constituted a terminal port. On Sunday, July 13th, the Tamwera got some water down her skylight as she came into Wellington harbour, and a steward named Blackie had to spend ten minutes or so in mopping it up. He claimed overtime for this, but the chief steward refused to recognise the claim, urging that Blackie had only been fulfilling his ordinary duties, Wellington not being the vessel’s terminal point. The Arbitration Court was asked to solve this knotty problem. Regarding a breach alleged to have occurred on the Monowai in regal’d to overtime, Mr McNicoll. manager of the Union Steam Ship Company’s stores department in Wellington, gave evidence that to the heist of his belief two men concerned in the matter had been paid for their overtime. Witness had asked one of the men (Bevan) to write a letter saying there w’as no money owing to him; had not asked him to write a letter saying that lie had not claimed overtime.

Henry Bevan, steward, deposed that oin a certain day he kept two five-hour port watches. These were overtime, he believed. Could not specify the date. Was not credited with overtime. When witness was subsequently on the Takapuna, Mr McNicoll asked him if he had claimed any overtime. Witness said No. McNicoll then asked if overtime was due to witness. Witness replied that it was too far back for him to remember; it was twelve months. Wrote a letter to Mr McNicoll, but that letter was sent back to witness with a message that it was no use one way or the other. Witness was sure he got no time off to make up for the port watches referred to. -Sometimes witness got an hour or two off while in port. Witness left the company of his own accord, and had not since applied for reinstatement.

There was argument between Mr Jones and Mr Kirby at this juncture as to whether the men concerned were entitled to fourteen hours’ overtime or seventeen. Mr Kirby put in vouchers showing full discharge by some of the men for fourteen hours’ payment, and he then characterised the union’s action as frivolous. Mr Jones retorted that the men had, signed the vouchers because they thought it best for their welfare, not because they thought them correct.

Eventually Mr Jones asked permission to withdraw the majority of his oases, reserving only those already heard and the cases of Dicker (Mapourika) and McEiwen (Mapourika). Tho permission was given. A. S. McEwen, who was mess-room steward in the Warrimoo in June, 1902, gave evidence that on that date ho had to attend to some shore men who were working overtime on the vessel at Newcastle, New South Wales. On July 13tli, at Melbourne, he had a similar duty. Each of these parties messed after the officers and engineers had finished. This duty entailed overtime on witness. By tins agreement 5 to 6 p.m. was mentioned as the hours for serving dinner; there was no provision for carrying on until 7 p.m. Witness did not apply to the Union Steam Ship Company for overtime; he just passed it in to the delegate. Mr Jones told witness that the officers’ steward was not entitled to overtime. (Mr Jones hastened to qualify this assertion.) Witness made no claim for overtime on the head steward. Evidence taken on commission regarding the dismissal of a printer lad named Hugh Dicker by the Union Steam Ship Company was adduced by Mr Jones, who contended that the lad had been dismissed because he claimed £4 per month from tlie company instead of the £3 he was receiving.

Mr Kirby (for the company) admitted that a mistake a® to wages had been made by the steward, who raised Dicker’s status and wages. The lad had been getting £1 10s per month, and when he was given the higher post a mistake of £1 per month was made in setting down his wages. The company was willing to give the extra £1 per month, but not to take back Dicker. Mr Jones contended that Dicker had! been dismissed without notice, and it was not until the union had moved in the matter that the company gave him a day’s pay in lieu of notice. The lad Dicker, called in evidence, deposed that he was discharged at an hour’s notice by the chief steward of the Mapourika. The chief steward asked witness if he was a member of the union. Witness replied “Yes,” and the chief steward then said, “ You silly boys will join the unionl will have to give you the sack!” Mr Kirby said the accusation was a very serious one to make against an official of the company; he weuld like

an adjournment to be given so that the chief steward could, be called. \Mr Slater reminded Mr Kirby that he had brought the evidence out himself, and Mr Jones informed the Court that the chief steward had absolutely denied having discharged the boy at" all.

Mr McNicofl (re-ealled) gave evidence that lie had received complaints from two chief stewards regarding the conduct of the lad. Dicker. The lad had not applied for re-engagement by the company. A saving of £3 per month was effected by the discharge of Dicker. It was because of incompetency for the double duties of cadet and printer that Dicker was dismissed; not because of his union Witness might have told Dicker he. could not be put on the rating he claimed.

Mr Jones asked the Court to notice that because Dicker was “slow and incapable and lazy” the company raised his wages by 100 per cent. The Union Company had paid the lad £3 per month for doing work far which it should have employed a man at £5 10s.

Francis HolmeSj accountant to the Union Company in Wellington, gave evidence that the company always forwarded to men any money ow.|ig to them if the men could be located.

W. A. Kennedy, Wellington manager of the Union Co., gave evidence as to proceedings taken by himself to obviate the present case. He found Mr Jones so prolix that it was impossible to get from him ( lything specific; his methods were roundabout and most unbusinesslike.

Mr Justice Chapman, at a later stage, informed the parties that the statement of Mr Cave, chief steward, seemed to have been made under circumstances that did not bind the company to his alleged remarks. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to call Mr Cave.' Mr Kirby addressed the Court briefly, contend jig that the company had no case to answer. He asked for costs in the oases heard, and also for costs incurred in preparing the oases that had since been withdrawn by the union.

Mr Jones submitted that clear breaches had been established in respect of the cases already heard. In face of the fact that ’no attempt was made by the company to condone the breaches before the actions were taken in the Court, the Court should give weight to the union’s contentions. As to Dicker, the fact was established that he would have been still in the company’s employ if the union had allowed him to remain in the company’s service at 30s per month instead of the wage stipulated in the agreement. The Court reserved its decision. QUANDARY OF A BUILDER. The Wellington Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners took action against Thomas C. McCarthy, of Wellington, for alleged failure to comply with terms of the award.

Mr Levi, who appeared for the uniefr, asked for an adjournment to permit of 6ome other similar cases being heard at the one time. The defendant asked that information be given to him regarding his alleged offence j he had been now twice to the Court and he did not yet know wherein 110 had -offended. It was getting monotonous. The President remarked that that story was often 'heard. Ho would remember Mr McCarthy’s plaint on & future occasion. The .case v'as adjourned sine die. FURNITURE. His Honor intimated (by request of Mr Young, counsel) tliok the furniture trade cases against Kirkcaidie and another would not bo taken until Tuesday morning at 10.30 o ; clock. MR A. LEVY’S TROUBLES. The New Zealand Federated Tailoresses 5 Union brefught three cases against Abraham Levy for enforcement of awards. Dr Findlay appeared for the union and Mr Levi for the defendant. Dr Findlay explained 'that the award alleged to have been broken concerned the machining of garments. The log by which payments were regulated was a complex one, and it v r as alleged by. the union that Mr Levy interpreted it, in respect of at least one item, in such a way that he was paying a shilling less per dozen garments than the log specified. Mr Levy, counsel urged, had before been in conflict with the union, and it seemed that his actions had been “wilful, continuous and wholly indefensible.”

' Mrs Carwood, nee Miss Vogel, /deposed that before her marriage she was employed in Mr Levy’s factory. She left it in March of /this year. At Mr Levy’s she was machining trousers. Was paid 4s 6d per dozen for “tweeds, firstclass, macliinqd in, men’s.” Got 4s 6d per -dozen for machining “railway trousers.” Did all machining of these jobs except the “band”; by the system of the factory that was passed on to another girl. A dozen of the bands cquld be done in five minutes. Witness was paid nothing extra for back-straps and nip pocket®. Other girls witness knew; were paid the same rate. To Mr Levi: Witness got 4s 3d for “second-class slops.” The log specified only 3s 9d, but witness had to do certain extras. At this stage the Court adjourned until ten o’clock next morning*

Tfro Court resumed its* sittings at 10 otelock on Saturday morning. A TAELORESSES’ CASE.

The hearing of the case of the-Tador-esses’ Union against Abraham Levy (alleged breach of award) was resumed. Edith Vaughan, secretary of the union, who had had six years’ experience of factory work with the Wellington Woollen Company, said that all factories were supposed to work with one log unless special provision was made for alteration. Particulars were given by the witness regarding the putting-in of canvas bands in trousers. When the machinists did this it was an extra, and under the log she should be paid 3d per dozen pairs. May 'iFellowes, who had been working for in Levy’s factory, principally at' trouser maohining, deposed that for “tweed trousers, first-class, pockets machined in,” she was paid 4s Gd per dozen. Witness did not put the pockets in'; she machined them in, but she did not finish them off. (His Honor: “That's all that’s referred to in the log.”) When witness put f in she got one penny extra, ltul e-pock-ets were paid for too, an extra pennk. Always put back-straps on first-class trousers. Was not paid extra for that.. If witness had been asked to put bands in trousers she would certainly have expected to be paid extra. Witness was paid 4s 6d per dozen for “chart order" trousers and railway trousers. Bach of these included bands and back-straps. To Air Levi: Witness was now working on weekly wages. The piece-work experiences she had been giving referred to March last. In Mr Levy’s factory, the machinist did not make the pockets. Witness could not say if machinists in other factories load to make them.

Maud Cooper said sho had had some experience in two local factories. In the Wellington Woollen Factory witness got 5s per dozen for first-class trousers, machined-in. Band straps were always made by a special hand, but if the mar chinist made them at a,ny time an extra payment of 3d per dozen was provided. When witness put extra pockets in firstclass trousers, machined-in, she was paid extra for the work. At this stage Dr Findlay explained to the Court that the issue was a clear cut one

The union contended that the

employers were bound to work by the ' log, and made the point that if a factory owner was allowed to, introduce a .special log he would be working under a different scale of prices, and so setting at nought the Court’s awards. Mr Levi said his client’s contention was that the log was not binding. There were classes of work to which it did not apply. In order that his client should be convicted of a breach of the award it was necessary 'that he should be found guilty of having committed som9 specific breach of the law. The point was that his client had been doing a class of work for which the iog did not provide. Mona Robertson, employed at Levy’s factory, said she had been paid 4s Gd per dozen for chart order trousers. After witness was put on a weekly wage of 6d per hour she was put on to do Norfolk coats. (.Dr Findlay explained to the Court that the union’s contention was that this was a breach of the agreement.) Witness was a fir&t-cl ass machinist of ten years’ experience. She had not been put on Nor folks since March last. To Mr Levi: Was on Norfolks for e two or three days a wqek, but not for long. Mr Levy was only making an experiment to see if the work could be done oh the machines. Witness was paid for eight and a quarter hours per day, but she was in the habit of coming late to work. Thought her wage of 6d per hour was about full wages rate, considering the time sire lost. Augustus Chipper, foreman in the Wellington Woollen Company, called by defendant, said that the practice in the Wellington Woollen Company in regard to the machining of trousers was different to the samples produced (made in Levy’s factory). The machinists, witness believed, always made the pGckets. If the machinists in Mr Levy’s factory did not make the pockets, but merely machined them in, they did something not usual in other factories. Dr Findlay explained that provision was made for the making of a change in the log by agreement between the union and a factory. The Wellington Woollen Company had made such an agreement, but Mr Levy had not done so.

Nellie Norris, for about six years in Mr Levy’s employ, said she had principally worked on coats and vests. She ranked as a first-class machinist. Before September, of last year she was paid 22s 6d per week. Since then she had been getting 25s continuously. She was doing first-class coat machinist work when she was receiving the 22s 6d per week. To Mr Levi: Witness machined for eight or nine workers. Witness-, and at times two assistants, worked at the table. Some of the eight or nine were apprentices or improvers. Was the head '■•machinist, hut was not in charge of the table. Was not (by herself) working for eight silk or four silk-and-thread workers when she was getting only 22s 6d per week. Mary Callaghan, who had been nearly s ix years in Mr Levy’s employ, said she had" done coaifc, vest a trouser maohining for over a year. Witness was

a first-class machinist. She was getting 25s per week now, but before March or April last alio Only got 22s 6d. Sabina Metzenthin, a first-class hand, said she had been getting 25s per week since the 31st October last. Previous to that she got 22s Gd per week. She was doing coat-work then with two other machinists for nine silk-and-thread workers. She was the senior of tho three. Ruth Mctzenthin. who left Mr Levy’s employ about March of this year, said she was a coat machinist. Had been in a factory in Melbourne, but not engaged in making men’s clothes. When witness started with Mr Levy she got IDs per week; then 12s Gd per week for a fortnight, and for about three months 15s per Week. Witness was an improiuj"; thero was an apprentice who got less wages than witness. With her sister and the apprentice,, witness used to do the work for nine silk-and-thrcad workers. To Mr Levi: Witness was not expert in men’s tailoring, but she bad a goodgeneral knowledge of machining. At this stago an adjournment was made till 10.30 o'clock on Monday morning.