JOURNALISTS' DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17874, 3 March 1920, Page 5

JOURNALISTS' DISPUTE

ARBITRATION COURT RESERVES DECISION. (Fib United Puesb Association.) CHRJSTOHURCH, March 2. The Arbitration Court to-day heard a disputo between tho Christchurch Journalists Industrial Union of. Workers and tho Christchurch Prees Company,, tho Lyttelton Times Company, and the Canterbury Publishing Company. A partial agreement had been arrived at between the union and the Press and Times Companies, the scalo of wages to be:-—Senior reporters, £7 10s; general, £6; junior (first year), £4; second year, £4 10s; cadets (first year, £1 10s; second year, £2 15s; third year, £3 Hte; first reader, £5; second, £4 10s; third, £4-; fourth, £3 10s; copyholders—first year,. £1 ss; second year, £1 10s; third year, £1 15s. Parliamentary allowance £3 per week in addition to ordinary salaries. Mr P. SeliV?, who appeared for the Press and Times Companies, said, on behalf of these companies, that an agreement had been come to on tho great majority of points. The principal points left for tho court were sub-editors salaries, women reportsrs' salaries, and the question ot cadets. Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P., represented the union.

Mr R. C. Huie, who appeared for tho Canterbury Publishing Company, said it was a complete dispute so far as his company was concerned. They had a separate award from tho morning papers. Mr filed certain counter proposals to apply to evening papers. Mr Selig, in the course of his address, said tho wrong terms occasionally crept into awards which were likely to mislead. That had bean, he thought, tho case in respect of the Auckland award. The point with regard to sub-editors and their assistants was a most important one, which appeared to have boen overlooked in Auckland. He thought his Honor recognised this. In the counter claims of the Press and Times Companies they asked for £7 10s for the sub-editor, £6 for the first assistant, aid £5 for, the second assistant. It did mot necessarily follow that the minimum wrs always the maximum. Mr Sullivan said tho union assumed that the court would not go back on what it had done in Auckland so recently. Judge Stringer said that a new phase of tho qu?stion had been placed before, the court tliat day. Tho court reserved its decision.