ONE BIG AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10547, 25 March 1920, Page 6

ONE BIG AWARD

THE BUILDING TRADES IMPORTANT APPLICATION TO ARBITRATION COURT. PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. AUCKLAND, March 24. An important and far-reaching a P" plication in connection with a proposal to secure one big award to cover all branches of the building trade was made to the Arbitration Court today. Mr Justice Stringer presided. The Conciliation .Council has already taken evidence with the idea, of framing an award, and an agreement has ibcen reached on a number of important points. The question before the court to-day was not as to the provisions of the award, but as to whether the court had jurisdiction t. make an award of the nature proposed, or as to whether it was advisable to do so. The ease was opened by Mr Bloodworth, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, who appeared on behalf of all the> unions concerned: Ho said that although the application' had been filed by the Carpenters' Union, other members of other allied unions had joined with the carpenters and "wished to secure one comprehensive award. Tin, warrant for the application was section 24 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908. This section had in mind similar circumstances as had arisen in the present inv' stance, and the applicants were merely asking the court to exercise Kb jurisdiction tinder clause 4 of the section, and make one award covering all branches of. the trade. The proposed award was intended to supersede the following nine expired awards: Auckland carpenters, Gisborno coapenters, northern districts plumbers, Auckland plasterers, Auckland electricians. Auckland and Gisborne furniture trades, Auckland monumental nftisons, and Auckland builders and masons.

It was also proposed that the new award should supersede the Auckland and <• Gisborn© Painter*' Awards, ina the Auckland Bricklayers' Award. Mr S. I. Clarke said the Auckland Builders' Association and other builders in Auckland, all of whom he represented, ivero in favour of the proposal. He considered, on the ground of pufolic interest, the proposal should ibe granted. His Honour said there was no doubt that the Act provided for related trades to be included in one award. The court had authority to extend the classes of the trade beyond those specifically mentioned in the Act if it was satisfied that such trades were related. Mr S. B. Wright, who appeared on behalf of master painters, plumbers, monumental, masons, electricians, and furniture manufacturers, opposed the award on the ground that the citation was irregular and invalid. The Act did not make provision for ono industry to make application for an award to cover another industry. After deliberation, the court held it had no ' jurisdiction to make the Possibly some employers iv-ould apply to Ibo struck out, and any such applications would bo considered. The court would decide in the course of the inquiry as to which employers were engaged in trades and industries related to building trades. Mr Wright applied to have all the employers who did not employ carpenters struck out. His Honour said he could not seo why the Carpenters' Union could no; raise, a dispute as to wages and conditions of work of artisan* engaged in related trades. Mr Wright called witnesses in support of his contention that electrical workers, furniture and cabinetmakers, painters, monumental masons, and plumbers should not be included in the proposed award. The court announced it would give a decision on Saturday as to which were related trades. The actual terms an I conditions of tho award would be consTiiere later.