LABOUR DISPUTES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4428, 7 August 1901, Page 3

LABOUR DISPUTES.

WELLINGTON CONCILIATION BOARD. The Conciliation Board resumed the hearing of the dispute in the painters’ trade yesterday, when the representatives of the union and the employers ad_ dressed the Board. Captain Strang, representing the Union Steam Ship Company, in addressing the Board, said he only wished to speak on the matter of wages. As.to the rate of wages they had strongly in evidence that the union was not justified in asking higher wages at present. He referred to tho evidence of Messrs Daniels and Moore, who had stated that painters were always paid at a lower rate than carpenters. The evidence showed that an ordinary “ brush-hand ” did not require much skill. It was net a trade requiring an expensive kit of tools, or was it hard on clothes. According to the weight of evidence £3 per week was considered a living wipe. He commented on the action cf the union in seeking to reduce the hours. Painters in Melbourne and Sydney were regarded as getting a fair wage at Is 3d per hour. The company was paying a fair wage, and the men were satisfied, as the evidence showed. The evidence also showed that it was not practicable to give rough painting work to shore pa’* niers.

On Mr Willis, M.H.R. \Waagrmui), appearing before the Board, vho chairman explained the nature of the Board’s decision on the previous day, which Mr Willis had not had an opportunity of reading, with regard to bringing public bodies into the dispute. Mr Smith, appearing on behalf of the Harbour Board, said with reference to the Board’s resolution of the previous day that ho had sufficient evidence to prove that some of th e local bodies did do painting. One clerk 0 f a road board admitted that they painted their street lamps. He thought he had clearly shown that the Harbour Board was selfcontained, like a ship, and had any number of handy sailormen who. could turn their hands to anything. It would be disastrous, in view of the exigencies of Harbour Board work, to have to depend on a search for a union ir.a.i in busy times to do work which _i squired to be executed at once. A union witness earning £2 6s per week had said that he would go down to the wharf and take the paint-brush from the hand of a wharf labourer earning, say, £BO or £9O per annum, and do the work. To paint a rusty shed did nob require .skill. A shilling an hour would be good pay for such work. Mr Cole had referred to the deadly effects of handling white lead, but instead of bringing forward a physL cal wreck in support of his arguments had presented himself. Mr James Hutchens (Stewart and Co.), in addressing the Board, said he would not object to an award similar to the previous award. Mr Cole, president of the union, regretted that employers had seen fib to level charges against the union and individuals and then withdraw without bringing any evidence in support of them. He referred to Mr Tingey’s evidence and the Palmerston North agreement. He could not see where the cheapness of living came in in the country towns. What was saved in rent was more than counterbalanced by the dearness of food. He complained bitterly of the way in which masters did their work. A man was expected to cover acres with paint as fast as he could. The speaker proceeded to deal with the employers’ evidence. He said he would like to see the award extended over more then two' years. Mr Noot, an ex-president of the union, also addressed the Board. He ridiculed the idea of painters not being equal to sailors. A wharf, crane would present no difficulties to a shore painter. This concluded the addresses, and the Board then went into committee.

The Iron and Brass Moulders’ dispute will be adjourned this morning by the Conciliation Board until Monday n-xt.