ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20786, 3 August 1929, Page 28

ARBITRATION COURT.

DOMINION ENGINEERS’ AWARD. The following memorandum has "' been issued by the Arbitration" Court ,in 'connection with the Dominion Engineers’ Boilermakers’ and Moulders’ award;“The court has not altered the terms of the expired, awards, except in so far as the parties agreed in Conciliation Council. In view of the claims put. forward on behalf of the manufacturing section of .the industry, a majority of the court has decided to give that section an opportunity of reopening the matter after the expiration of six months, when further information may be available. Mr Schmitt desires to. add his opinion" and Mr Monteitll desires to record bis dissenting opinion, both of which are subjoined Wages for turret lathe" turners anil a partial exemption for Metters Ltd. are reserved for further consideration.” The opinion of Mr L. J. Schmitt (the employers’ representative) is as follows: “ Evidence at the hearing proved Chat there are at least two distinct divisions m the engineering, industry. Broadly speaking, these, are (1) the jobbing anil repairing section; and (2) the purely manufacturing and assembling section. The latter is governed by economic factors _ that have very little, or no bearing on the former. The conditions under, which workers are employed in the first division are quite different in the majority of cases from those which obtain in the second division. Automatic machinery compulsorily installed on, account of externa] competitive forces has, through its very nature, altered in a large degree the Hitherto necessary employment I. 1 n 1 1\ skilled workers. Nowadays semiskilled, and even quite unskilled, opera-, tires can control many of the machines in the manufacturing division of the engineering industry. Further, recent progressive developments in production and pou er methods have caused extensive changes in engineering practice. For the above and for many other reasons, I. am of the opinion that it is right that the parties concerned have an early opportunity of conferring and, if possible, agreeing upon a set of wages and conditions that will be helpful to both workers and employers in bringing about a state of prosperity in the manufacturing division of this important industry" which, to saj the least,, is at the present.- time stagnant. Moreover, a correct distinc-" tion between the first and second divisions will also result in increased prosperity in the jobbing section of the industry.” -. ■ • f ,hlr A. L. Monteith (the employees’ representative) gives the following dis-senting-opinion;:—. I dissent because of the statement in th§ mcmo'ramiiim. This award \m been made at the request pf the- employers. In the past three separate awards operated, the court was asked by the employers to make -a -comprehensive award/ and the present award/ which covers " moulders, boilermakers, atid engineers, etc., wag the outcome" of sutflr application. I cannot see why a decision to make a" comprehensive award, a decision, with which 1 agreed, should, within a few * Weeks, ■be altered and a suggestion for another small award be' made for workers already covered by , this comprehensive award, one minute is made, and. the next a-suggestion for, a.breaking down of- this grouping is -made/ even - before the ■ decision -for grouping, ispu£ into operation. In , “y .. opinion such fluctuation Laves unions in a very uneasy state, and is not desirable.” ■ ■ ...