ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20022, 12 February 1927, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT.

DUNEDIN SITTINGS CONCLUDED. The Arbitration Court eat again yesterday, when tho final fixtures for tho sittings were disposed of. HAIRDRESSERS AND TOBACCONISTS. Mr W. W. Batchelor appeared in support of the claims of the Otago Hairdressers and Tobacconists’ Union, and Air A. S. Cookson represented the employers. Mr Batchelor said it was the first occasion on which they had come before tho court without a complete agreement. The union asked that the hours of work be 48 and that they be worked between 8.3 U a.m. and 6 p.m. or 8 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. They were agreeable that two late nights should be observed, conditional on Saturday being decided on as the weekly haltholiday. The wages asked for hairdresser* was £5 10s for males and £4 10s for females. In making awards for carpenters, painters, and other skilled trades, the court had fixed wages at skilled rates, and the union merely asked that in this respect it should be placed on the same footing as other skilled trades. The union also askoa that no employer should bo allowed to lease chairs in his saloon. On respect to the tobacconists’ assistants, wages, holidays, and annual leave had been agreed to and tho only question for the court to decide was that of hours, which tho union tusked should be the same as those for other sections. Continuing, Mr Batchelor said that 46 of tiio employers had signed a petition asking for Saturday half-holiday, while six others were already observing it. There were 22 who observed Wednesday as the haltholiday. On behalf of the union, \V. Tibbies ana C. Blackford gave evidence hearing on the leasing of chairs. His Honor stated that the court did not like tiie system of leasing, but the difficulty was how to deal with it. Mr Cookson said the employers wore, strongly opposed to the insertion of any provision that would take away tho right to select tho day on which the holiday shoulo be observed. The parties were in accord as to tho number of hours to he worked, but differed on the question of how they should be worked. The trade was essentially one in which the convenience of the public should ho specially considered. Tho employers felt that no increase should be made in the minimum wage, which was the same as that fixed by the Christchurch award of last year. It was suggested that whatever provisions governing female hairdressers were inserted in the award should be made to apply only to establishments exclusively confined to ladies’ work. As to the hours of work far tobacconists’ assistants, the; court would see from a letter to the Conciliation Commissioner that they wished the present hours continued. It was only by keeping their shops open during the hours at present observed that employers could hope to retain their legitimate .share of the trade J. 1), Clyde staled in evidence that ho had signed tho letter to the commissioner. He represented five of the eight tobacconists’ assistants in the city. Air Batchelor contended that there wore 21 assistants and that the letter had been signed under threat of dismissal. Evidence given by V. S. Jacobs went to show that tne greater volume of his trade was transacted on Saturdays. The court reserved its decision in respect to the claims, and also in respect to .applications for exempton from the Mosgiel hairdressers, and from Misses E. Brown, M. C, Dillon, H. E. Milsom, and Clough. BOARDING ALLOWANCE. Inspector of Awards (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) v. Otago Electric Power Board (Mr J. B. Dalian). Air Lightfoct said that the case was brought really with the idea of getting an interpretation; a penalty was not claimed. Tho position was that four of tho. hoard’s employees who were engaged at Waikouaiti were on June 29 of last year, sent from Waikouaiti to Palmerston, and in October they were sent to Karitanc. They had not been paid boarding or country allowance. J. Irving and A. J. Gray gave evidence to the effect that after working for some time at Waikouaiti they were sent to Palmerston, and then later to Karitanc, at which place they had boarded for a boot eight weeks. Tile board’s motor lorry conveyed thorn from place to place, but they had never been paid the allowance. On behalf of the board Mr Calian called J. W. Linklator. foreman, who said he had sent the men from Waikouaiti to Palmerston, and later to Karitane. He told thorn that the work at Karitane would he all done from Palmerston, and that they would be taken down and back each dav in the lorry, but they elected to stay at Karitane. Air Oallan contended that the circumstances of the board were different from those of other businesses, in that the latter had central places of business. The fundamental words in clause 9 were “his usual place of residence.” He submitted that Waikouaiti was tho usual place of residence while the men wore working at Waikouaiti, Palmerston while they were working at Palmerston, and Karitane while they were working at Karitane. It was not a temporary removal from a centrl place, but a removal to another central place. If Air Linklator had discharged the men at Waikouaiti and then re-engaged them at Palmerston, would that have made any difference? Would they then have been entitled to the allowance? He based his argument, however, on the broader basis of tho nature of the work Mr Lightfoot contended that in the case of the men, the usual place of residence was Waikouaiti. They were, he said, in tho same position as carpenters and plasterers, for whom provision in tho matter of country allowance was made. The court retired for a few minutes, and on its return his Honor said that the principles involved wore well settled.. The court had taken tho view that if a man applied for a position in a certain place am! got it that place must be assumed to he, his place of residence. Tho men were engaged at Waikouaiti then told to go to Palmerston, and later to Karitane. ‘ The men should have been paid the allowance while they were away from Waikouaiti. In regard to Mr Dalian's question about dis charging the men, it all depended on the nature of the work. For instance, if nu employer discharged labourers in one place and told them they could applv for jobs with him in another place, that might, probably lie quite all right, for there would ho no difficulty about his setting men. But in the case of an employer discharging men in one place when be knew there w°as no possibility of his getting other men, that might bo an evasion of the law. Tho court held that the men were entitled to tho allowance, and a breach would bo recorded without penalty. The board would have to pay wit.noss.es's expenses. APPLICATION TO ADD PARTIES. Air W. Herbert applied to have the Dunedin Engineering and Steel Co., and Sparrow and Co. added as parties to the storeman and packers’ award. '.ln support of the application Mr Herbert called J. Walker, who detailed the nature of the duties he was engaged in at Sparrow’s. •Mr Cookson called A. J. Sparrow, who said (hat Walker and his assistant had always been classified as metal workers’ assistants. They did the actual loading of goods, hut a shipping clerk was responsible, forthe despatching of them. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the other firm cited, and his Honour intimated that the court, would reserve its decision. Mr Herbert, made a. further application to have W. L. Kempthorne, R. M. Laverty, J. Moore and tho Red Band taxis made parties to the Motor Transport Driver.-' Award. In this case, which was belt] over from last week, his Honor said the court was of opinion that the conditions in Dunedin were no different from those in other centres, am) the parties would he added. So far as the Red Band taxis were concerned it was unfortunate that the pro priet.nrs had not had the opportunity of appearing before tho commission. AN AWARD OPPOSED, The Southland Hotel and Restaurant, Workers’ Union asked that an award bo made in terms of an agreement arrived at. On behalf of the local union Mr R. Harrison objected to the application being granted on the grounds that the local union had more .Southland members than the Southland union had. Mr Cookson contended that, the court was hound to make an award as asked for, and the court reserved its decision.