ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3015, 27 December 1911, Page 37

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court ©at on Friday morning, his Honor Mr Justice Sim presiding, Mr W Scott representing the employers, and Mr J. A. M'Oullough the workers. COMPENSATON CLAIM. Mary White Ashton claimed from William Isaac Ashton £4lO as compensation for the death of her husband, Henry Ashton, the alleged cause of death being pneumonia, due to inhaling poisonous fumes while slacking lime. Mr Adame appeared for claimant, and Mr Wm. C. M'Gregor for respondent. Mr Adams expressed regret that he had again to ask the court to adjourn the case, as one of the witnesses was seribusly ill and could not attend. Mr MacGregor said that the only difficulty in the matter of adjournment was about the date of the next hearing. His Honor said the court would pro-

bably sit at Dunedin in February. Mr MacGregor said that the case turned on a good deal of medical evidence, and he understood that there was to be a tnedical conference at Timaru from February 19 to February 26. His Honor: If the. next sitting of the court is held in February it will be held before the 19th, You can roly on that. The case was adjourned till the next sitting of the court early in February. CARPENTERS’ DISPUTE. The court w r as called upon to consider a few points, the main issues having been settled before the Conciliation Commissioner. Mr : W. J. Smith intimated that he appeared on behalf of the Union Steam Ship Company to apply for an exemption from the award on the same lines that were followed in connection with the Wellington award. The dispute was practically confined to builders and contractors. His company had no objection to conform to the terms of the award as regarded wages and overtime when they came within the scope of the award. Mr Kell-ett said the union, had no objection, provided the company kept by the award when it came within its scope. His Honor: It is bound to do that. The exemption was granted. Mr Kellett explained that there had been two omissions made in the recommendations before the court, and that it was desired to have them rectified before the court made an award. The first in respect to a clause dealing with the minimum rate of wages. A part referring to piecework had been left out by mistake. The clause should have read: “All journey-

men carpenters or journeymen _ carpenters and joiners or journeymen joiners shall be paid not less than Is 4id per hour. Piecework is prohibited, and no work to be sub-let labour only.” There was also an error in respect of the date of the expiry of the award. The recommendations stated that the date was June, 1912, whereas it should have been June, 1913. The court intimated that the omissions would be rectified.

Mr Sandes applied for an exemption on behalf of certain factories in respect of the hours of labour specified in the recommendations. The firms desiring such exemption were Hogg and Co. (Ltd.), th© Dunedin Timber and Hardware Company, M'Callum and Co., and the Chatha Timber Company, Balclutha. It was the request of the employees that they should work 46£ hours per week in the factories, and th© application for exemption was not against employees' interests. Mr Keilett said that th© union opposed) the application for the reason that a large number of th© factories in the City of Dunedin agreed to the 44 hours per week voluntarily. It appeared to him that if th© court granted th© application made by Mr Sandes it would b© giving a preference to the firms the applicant represented. The Brans which had agreed to the 44-hour week did the came clas® o*f work as those firms which applied for exemption. He thought it a very reasonable request to ask that employees be allowed one hour for lunch each day. Hogg and Co. had b©»U working on the 44-hour system for soma time past, and now they wanted) to revert to the old system.

Mr Sandes said it was a vcnfcjmportant matter to the firms he represented. He pointed out that the firms quoted; bv Mr Kellett were, only manufacturing joinery for their own contracts, whereas the firms who applied for exemption manufactured for the trade in general. The Auckland factories had been granted a privilege to work 47 hours per week. If the court could not eee its way clear to grant the application, he would ask that the question bo reserved until Mr Pryor could be present to argue the matter before the court. The, court announced that it would take time to consider the matter. TRAWLERS’' DISPUTE. In this dispute. Mr Haymes, on behalf of the union, requested that the recommendations of the council be made an award of the court. Mr Middendorf objected to being cited as one of the parties to the award, his vessel being only an oil launch. Only three owners of these had been cited, and there were a number of others. He had known nothing of his citation until a week ago, and there had been no time since to call a meeting of the Fishermen’s Union. Mr Haymes explained that only F. J. Sullivan and the Union Trawling Company had been cited Mr W. G. Robertson, who appeared on behalf of Mr Sullivan, said that when the parties appeared before the Conciliation Commissioner they began to discuss the clauses of the men’s demands seriatim, but they had not got through the first clause when the employees’ representatives proposed the continuance of the whole award for another year, and that this agreement was to be constituted an award for that time. This proposal was agreed to. The union then claimed overtime for the firemen, because they started one hour before the others to get up steam, and Mr Newton, the Labour Department’s inspector, backed up this claim. The employers had never paid extra for that hour per day from the time. of the original award coming into operation, ano he maintained that they should not pay it now. He asked the court’s decision on the matter, for the employers were threatened with prosecution if tney did not pay it. His Honor: Does this hour come within the 70 hours .per week? Mr Robertson: The fireman has three hours oft' per day. He works less than 70 hours per week. His Honor: If you do not work him more than 70 hours in any week or more than 12 hours per day you have not to pay him for overtime Mr Robertson: Of course, it is when the vessel is out at sea that he has his three hours off; Is that counted as time worked ? Mr Haymes: We contend that the fireman is on duty 13 hours a day. When the vessel goes to sea the fireman has to be there at 5 a.m. to enable the vessel to leave at 6 a.m. His Honor: Does he not get a watch off? Mr Haymes; There is no watch off. The fireman is liable to bo called at any time when the vessel is at sea. His watch lasts 13 hours. It is purely a matter of arrangement between Inc fireman and the engineer as to the fireman getting hie time off for a. rest. Even if the vesftel does not go out to fish the fireman is there at 5 a.m., and he works until 6 p.m., making 13 hours on duty. This means 76 hours per week for a wage of £2 ss. Mr Robertson said that Mr Haymes was in error in saying that if the boat did not go to sea the fireman put in the same time. Often on Sundays the boats left Dunedin at 7 a.m., and put into Port Chalmers, the men getting the rest of the day off. Lately there had been a considerable number of days off, owing to the boats not being able to get out because of bad weather. In such cases the fireman did not put in 13 hours a day, as he got off at 5 p.m. His-Honor' If the fireman works more than 12 hours in any one day or more than 70 hours in any week he is entitled to be paid overtime, although part of the time is made up in getting up steam. We cannot decide in ant particular case whether the fireman has been worked moii© than the 12 home or the 70 hours. It all depends on the circumstances. If the fireman is given a definite watch below while the trawler is at sea. then it would not count as working time. The more fact that he is not actually working, but must turn to if wanted, points-to the conclusion that he should be treated as working. That is our opinion of the matter. All the rest of the award is agreed to.

The court then directed that the agreement be constituted an award, having a currency of 12 months.