ENGINEERS’ DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9043, 14 May 1915, Page 7

ENGINEERS’ DISPUTE

HEARING AT DUNEDIN. Press - Association. DUNEDIN, May 13. The Otago and Southland engineers’ dispute came before the Arbitration Court this morning. Mr Scott, for the employers, applied to have all those not connected with ship engineering work struck off the list. Ho said that during his fifteen years’ experience of the Arbitration Court this was the most ' extraordinary reference he had met. The union had violated a distinct pronouncement of the court. It had included p'oople dead,, people not now in business, people who didn’t employ engineers, also people governed by the engine-drivers’ award. Mr Elston, for the union, replied that if many of the firms were hot in-

cluded ~in the award at least one-third of their membership would be outside , the pale of the award, and the membership woidd, he reduced to a. very small number.

The president said,the court had already decided to exclude anyone not engaged in the industry of engineering. He said the question of motorgarage engineers was raised in Wellington, and the court allowed ithe matter to stand over until they heard evidence in Dunedin and Auckland as to whether. there should be distinct ,award. In regard to the list, Mr Elston would have to show that everyone was engaged in the industry, or they would be struck out. Mr Elston submitted that if the Union Company got exemption it should not be on the prosept terms. The preaidept f.aid the,court assumed! that exemptions hold until Mr Elston, could show otherwise. Mr Elston contended that the Union. Company had no responsibilities whatever as far as apprentices were concerned. The president: "If they are nob bound a boy ought not to enter as apprentice.” , - ■’ -’v ,i Mr Smith said the Union Company was already paying tho award rate as far as shore engineers were concerned. The claims would involve 2s a day extra for tho company over outside companies. - - Charles F. Alexander, manager of the Dunedin Tramways, asked for exemption on night work and “dirty work,” The president said the court would stand by the" previous -decision. The proper plan would be to take tho original list of parties and leave the union to supplement that by evidence avail- 1 able to show that others mentioned in tbo citation were engaged in the engineering industry. , ' v The question of including tho motor industry in tho engineers’ award was then considered. Tho employers contended "that engineering work in garages went to engineering shops. The president said that it appeared to him that there ought to be a special award Tor motor mechanics. Mr Elston said tho engineering trade had boon allowed to got into a disreputable state through, engineering work being undertaken in motor garages and not paid for at trade rates. This closed,the case as far as the motor garages were concerned. J. McDonald Stevenson, of Port Chalmers, said tho regulation with regard to overtime was very important. It might he such that overtime work would have to be done away with, and this work would largely gravitate to Sydney. Ho objected to the increase in wages. Manufacturing had decayed, and his firm’s place had practically become a repairing shop. In the past they had done a considerable export business to Australia; If the' proposed increase was made over tho whole works it would mean an increase in wages of between £4OOO and £SOOO. At Is a day it would mean £2IOO a year, whiich was more than the profits/Of the ' business.' 'V.;4 ■ ' T. M. Gillies, .of the firm of John McGregorand Constated that the. industry would not ijvarrant higher ..wages being paid. Irforcased wages would reduce the number of-men employed. Similar evidence was given by T. R. Burt, (A. J. A. Brown (Methven and' and, W. R. Water* (Anderson and 'CcV). ' 1 - Decision was-reserved until evidence is heard elsewhere, rOs a Dominion award is sought.