ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20021, 11 February 1927, Page 13

ARBITRATION COURT

HEARING OF DISPUTES. The Arbitration Court sat again yesterday, when arguments concerning several disputes were placed before it. DUXEDIX WAREHOUSEMEX'S DISPUTE. A partial agreement had been come to in the Dunedin warehousemen's dispute, and the only clauses with which the court was asked to deal were those of classification, wages, and whether wages should be fixed according to age or according to experience. The union (Mr J. Robinson) asked that the present classification of juniors, seniors, and travellers should remain, while the employers (Mr A. S. Cookson) asked that the word “travellers’’ should be deleted from the clause. The union also asked that the rate of wages for juniors be increased by 10s per week, and that for seniors by 17s 6d per week. It further asked that the age classification should remain. Mr Robinson contended that the employers demanded the right to sacrifice the career of a youth on the altar of experiment. Thai, was not a picture drawn from the imagirtation, but a statement of cold fact. One Dunedin firm had put off four juniors, two in their fifth year and two in their third rear. They were just about to qualify for their annual increases. During last winter another Dunedin firm put off six juniors. What became of those lads? One of them was now a labourer, and another a rouseabout. The union’s demands were for increases of 10s a week for juniors, 17s 6d for seniors, and 15s a week for travellers. in this particular trade education was a poor investment, for the youth with the primary education earned more than the one with a secondary education. In eight years the printer’s apprentice earned £llOO, against the warehouseman's £1023. The difference was more marked in other trades.

For the employers, Mr Cookson contended that Mr Robinson's statements were largely made up of his own economic theories. He challenged the statement that employers preferred youths with a high school education, it was absurd to talk about wages so high as those asked for, since employers could pay wages only out of profits. He also challenged the strength of the union, the employers taking up the position that the union was not representative of the workers employed in the industry. In 1919, the year of registration, the membership was 98; but it had fallen off since then, and in 1925 there were only 20 members. Eighteen firms employed 384 hands, and he wanted to know what the membership of the union was when the demands were made.

Mr Robinson, in evidence, said that when the dispute was filed there were 24 members; now there wore 52. Mr Cookson contended that that bore out what he said. There was a total of nearly 500 assistants, and ihe dispute was tiled with the object of reviving the union. the question of the desire for youths with high school education was mentioned, his Honor said the diversity of opinion one heard expressed on the point was astonishing. He was afraid/'that secondary school education was nqfr much of a test of the man.

Mr Robinson; But a boy with secondary education has the wider mind.

His Honor: Generally speaking, that is so. Such a boy may be of wider mind and more developed in some ways; but there is a good deal of criticism of our high school system, because it is more for lads going in for literary careers than for business.

There wa c an application for exemption by Messrs Gordon and Gotch, and finally the court reserved its decision on all points.

MUSTERERS. PACKERS. AND •DROVERS.

On behalf of the Otago Musterers, Packers, and Drovers' Union, Mr W. Herbert asked that an award bo made in terms of the Canterbury award.

Appearing for the employers, Mr A. S. Cookson said he was aware that a new award had been made for the Canterbury district, but it was a great disappointment to the sheepowners in this district to learn that the court, notwithstanding facts as to the position of the industry which were placed before it, had awarded a further increase in wages. Quite apart from the economic position of the sheep farmer, the decision of the court in the Canterbury dispute did not appear to be consistent with its pronouncement of September, 1925. Therein it was laid down as a general principle that wages should be fixed at a level approximately 60 per cent, above that of 1914. In that year the musterers’ rate per day was ICs. Under the present award it was 17s, or 10 per cent, higher than the court’s standard. It must, moreover, be borne in mind that these workers were housed and fed by the employer, and were therefore relieved during the period of employment of the increased cq>t of food and rent.

In every dispute brought before the court a strong point was inane of the necessity for mustercrs to provide a team of valuable dogs. One might be led to believe that this entailed a big outlay, but the evidence of reliable employers had proved this to be fallacious. What lie desired to stress most was the fact that the economic position of the farmer was not receiving due consideration. The cost of all farm requirements was now 60 to 100 per cent, above 1914 —far in excess of the increase in values of primary produce. It was generally admitted, that the primary products were the real basis ot the prosperity of a country, but they could not continue to be so if the cost of production were increased and increased without regard to the value of the output. "To attempt to convince the court that no increase in wages should be conceded for Otago and Southland is,” said Mr Cookson, “in view of the court’s Canterbury award, something in the nature of a forlorn hope, but I cannot forbear from making this protest on behalf of the employers 1 represent.” The court reserved its decision. DAIRY DRIVERS’ DISPUTE. The Otago Drivers nad Related Trades’ Union (Mr W. Herbert) applied for an award to cover drivers employed on dairy carts, engaged in the retail delivery of milk in and around^Dunedin, Mr Herbert said that the application was the first to be made covering the particular section mentioned. He referred to a petition that had been signed by several employees "of the two principal companies concerned, and stated that 16 of those who had signed it were members of the union be represented. The principal claim of the union was that of wages. The court would probably be aware of the fact that with some of the drivers a system of commission prevailed, and he had been instructed to ask that the commission system, so far as Dunedin was concerned, should be abolished. The union also asked that there be but one delivery of milk per day. That was practically a custom now, and so the court would really not be making something new. A further claim was for a 44-hour week, with a 4 o’clock start. The employers were arguing that the union had no jurisdiction over employers whose principal business was that of dairy farming, and that an award could not he made to cover parties whose drivers might be occupied for a considerable time on their farms, but the title of the union provided for drivers and related trades, and if a man were driving a vehicle then the union had jurisdiction over him. . , , . ... In support of the union s claims Mr Herbert called several employees of the Taieri and Peninsula Company and the Otago Co-operative Milk Supply Company, who gave evidence bearing on the conditions of their employment. No evidence was submitted in respect of the dairy farmers whom the union desired to bind as parties to the award. Mr A. S. Cookson, who appeared for the employers, said that the employees of the dairy farmers cited were substantially farm hands, and in the few instances where they drove milk delivery veil ides they did so only incidentally to their principal occupation as farm hands. That the employees of the two dairy companies cited did not desire an award was proved by the fact that they had signed a petition to the Conciliation Commissioner asking to ho excluded from the provisions of the award. The employees of the dairy companies had no community of interest witli the general drivers, as the conditions of their employment were entirely different. Since no award could he made under the application in respect of the dairy farmers a grave injustice would he dona to the two dairy companies if an award were made regulating the hours of work and the wages of their omployec-s. while leaving the dairy farmers entirely free from any restrictions. After a brief retirement his Honor intimated that the court had decided not to make an award on the basis of the application. He said that there were two insuperable difficulties in the way. In