INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2883, 23 June 1909, Page 37

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.

BOOT TRADE AGREEMENT. WELLINGTON, June 18. An award embodying the agreement regarding female workers in the bootmaking trade, filed by the Aibitration Court, upplies to Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, and Southland. Preference is given to unionists. The hours are 45 per. week. Overtime is fixed at time and a-quaiter for the first two hours and time and a-half after. The minimum wage for females after five years' is £1 7s 6d per week, wax-thread machinists £1 15s. Apprentices : First year 7s, second 11s, third 15s, fourth 19p, and fifth £1 3s. The award expires in 1911. BOOT TRADE DISPUTE. Th 3 a warn of the Court of Arbitration in connection with the fed-crated boot trade dispute filed w'th the clerk of awards in Christchuivh, makes the following altera lions in tho existing award: — Clause? 1 (preference of employment). 2 (departments). 3 vconiiol of factory macrinerv), 4, 5, 6 (control of factory), are the same as in the listing award exceptthat, instead of a oommittte being set up (o- deal with applications for pen p. its to work at ho:no, this matter is left to the inspector of factories. CluiHe 7, dealing witn the classification 01 departments, reads as follows:— (a) Clicking; (b) making comrnecces with the operation of pulling over uppsr for laaters, stiffeners and toe pieces being properly prepared; (c) finishing commences with the operation of edtyetnmming and ends with, rubbing off heels or edges; (d) rough work. i Clause 8 provides for the existing hours j of -work to be observed. j Clause 9 prcvid'as for the following grades ! of workers: — (a) The first grade includes outside clickers, makers, finis-iiers, out-sole cutters, and machine operators; (b) second grade, rcughstuff cutters and all other workers not included in first gjc«de. Clause 10. — Workers in first grade to be paid not less than Is OJd. per hour, and second, grada not less than Is per h-our. Tke waf^ is am hourly on«, and paid only for time worked. Clause 11. — Overtime is the same as in the. present award. Clause 12: Holidays.— The holidays areChristmas Day. New ifear's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Labour Day, King's Birthday. Work on either of these days or Sunday is to ba paid double rates. Clauses 13 (workers partially employed) and 14 (teimination of employment) repeat the old award. Clause 15: Under-rate Workers.— Permits are to be issued by the Inspector of Factories instead of by the committee under tas old award. Clause 16: Apprentices.— Clicking department: In this department ths nroportion of apprentices allowed is one to three journeymen, two la- six,, etc. -Beys may bs allowed' as lining cutter?. The period of apprenticeship is- six years, six months' probation beine allowed. Wages begin at. 7s 6d p*r week and rise to 3os per week. In the making and finishing department*, where indenturing is not compulsory, their term :s only six yeW One apprentice aJlowed to four men: waoes rising from 5s to 30s a- week. In the iou.°hstnff department one appreaiioe is allowed v«t I mm * Sl> - etC ' Beys el »P ! «yed for five years, become jourjjymen. Wages range from os a week to 255. Provision is rufde f£, ; £&«, sa &£%f Bw hJu " l Ihe remaining provisions of the awai-1 1 -are iksamy a* m the present. Ihe a ward comes mto force on June 21. and continues ill December 31, 1911. The reason* 5S have gUldedg Ul ded the court are embodied in following memorandum to the award — Ibis dunufe v.as leferred to the 'couir al:er an arterni;!; haci been made, but *vith011. suraess. ; jy the iJouneil of Conciliation to settle it. After » hearing in Welling ton, which lasted for f hi-fi days tr-o parI uo?, by u-rection ot the cc.m. "hel-J a. coniciencrt wirh a view of settling the matte-. • iie.v satlod a niM^ber of the ..oinis in ciispuro, but left the court to settle (I) th» m? 1 ° f wovk<:vs > (2/ wares. (3J ovortinis (4» the tenr of the award. A report of the- r-roceedings at tho conference and tho Jat»*t proposals of the parties were pu* oefci'e tha couit. The employers aske^l that there should be three grades of vork'-r* as lollo«s:— First giade to i.-icludc .-uf«ide clickers, makers, tinisliers, out-soie cutters, and ma-.-hiuc oi-H>racoi6, wlt^j <t mini»iurn of Is o^d i>cr hour Seco.vd grae'e !o include rough-stuff cutters and all others not mentioned in ihst grade, not being lining cutters, with a minimum of lljd per hour. Third grade to include lining cutters, with a minimum of 10£ d per hour. The union, on the <Aher hand, asked for two grades only : the first grade lo be the same as that proposed by the employers with a minimum of Is 2d per hour; the to include lining cutters, with a minimum of Is Id per hour. As will be seen, the court has made only two grades of workers, and has inrluded tho lining cutters in the second grade. The minimum wage for the tirst grade has been fixed at Is Oid per hour and for the second at Is per hour. The principal ground on which the union based its claim for an increa6e in wages was that there had bb c fin an increase since j I'jOS in the duty on imported boots. The parties were not agreed as to the amount of he increased duty. Mr Frost.ick asserted that the duty on the importations in 1905 was 24.69 per cent , ?nd in 1907 was 25.52 per cciii., giving a. difference of only .63 per c<.-nt. A report made up by Mr Leslie an acti.ary, was submitted to Mr Fro'tick, and put in after the hearing had closed. Taking the year 1908, and comparing tho duty paid then with the old tariff of 22£ per cent., which was in force before 1904, Mr Leslie found an increase of 3 per cent., on men's boots, nearly 9£ per cent on women's boots, and 8| per cent, on boys' ond girls' boots. It waa also proved that there had been a considerable decrease in the number of boots imported since the increased duty hod been imposed. Taking this into consideration, and assuming Mr Leslie's figures to be correct, it is difficult to see that these figures of themselves justify the increase asked for by the union. It 16 reasonable to conclude from them that the boot manufacturing trade is in a better condition now than it was before, but they are no guide as to the extent to which the profits of manufacturers have increased by reason of the change. Before the benefits derived from the increased duty can be apportioned between the manufacturerd

and their workers — if it be the function^ .of the .court to apportion them — it is neces» eary to know what these benefits are. The oourt cannot very well divide a fund before the amount thereof is known even approximately. On that subject the court was without information of any. kind, and. the increase granted by the present award is based principally on the offer, made by the employers. - _,„..-' Great reliance was placed by the union on the reasons tawn for an award made, by the -Arbitration - Court in . New South - Walea in connection with the engineeringti&ide in 1908. The wages of the men were increased, and this was done, it was stated, on- the basis of the- increased • duty of 7£ per cent. Four per cent, of . this was treated aa belonging to the employers, .andi about 2 2-3 rd per cent, was given to the men. If the dttty collected were paid to the oraployera it w.ould -be- easy to understand the ireaeori for dealing; *with the' matter in this way. But the duty, does not i?o into the pockc-ts of the employers, and the employers derive only an indirect benefit from the increased duty. That benefit may be large or small, according to : circumstances. • and - there is" certainly, nothing in the present, case to .justfy-thrf court in concluding -that this benefit bears any proportion, to the amount of the increased duty. ' With regard to 'overtime the court has repeated- the urovieions- contained- in the' last .award, which was agreed on -by- thflf parties -themselves. ".This, -in "effect, i»akea 47 hoars the hours oi work at ordinary rates in any way. The union asked- to have the hours reduced to 45 per week. It seems quite inoompr>ehea:sible that; workers who are paid by the hour, and l who oomnhun that they are not earning? enough; should desire to have thsir hours of work reduced, -with the^ certainty that in ordinary .circumstances 'their earnings aUo -will be reduced. The favourite demand of unions whose members are workins? at a weekly wage for increased wages and reduced hours is, at any rate, intelligible — they want more money for less work,— but the demand in the present caso is quite incomprehensible. So far from the hours of work beimer further reduced they should be restored to 48, ac fixetf originally .by this court 60 as to enable workers to increase their earnings. It may be desirable to point out tha<; the boot trade has been before the court; on five previous occasions — namely, in IRB6 1898, 1901. 1903, and 1805. On! thp \seU occasion all t.b« terms of the awa.rd (Book of Awards, Vol. 6. p.- 390) were agreed on by the parties thenraelvee.