ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3205, 18 August 1915, Page 49

ARBITRATION COURT.

PROPOSED SUSPENSION OE AAV ARDS. APPLICATION' REFUSED. AVELLINGTON, August 16. The effect of a decision given by the Arbitration Court to-day is to dismiss the application by the employers for the suspension of the engineering, boilermakers, and metal workers’ awards except with regard to the stock catalogue work and the apprentices’ claims contained in the engineers’ award, on which points the employers were granted permission to call evidence. AVith the exception of the two clauses specified the awards, therefore, operate as from July 19. Dealing with the application relating to the engineers’ award, made in June, his Honor said that in a memorandum attached the court had pointed out that the engineering trades throughout New Zealand had been proved to be languishing, due to a large extent to competition with importations, and the court had therefore not felt justified in increasing the existing minimum wage of Is 4d per hour. Further, the court had not thought it would be in the interests of the workers to increase the minimum rates, as the increased cost of production would prevent competition with the imported article. This would mean less work and fewer workers. The court had clearly shown that it did not wish to impose any extra burden on the employers in the way of increased wages. The attitude which the employers now adopted was that, although wages had not been increased, the other alterations made in the award would greatly increase the cost of production. They had, therefore, applied for an opportunity to present evidence showing why the award should be amended. One point the court had to decide was whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the application. By the express terms of the award it had power to consider an application to amend the award. Another point was whether the court should give the employers leave to state their case. For the union, his Honor said, it had been contended that to grant the application would be to destroy confidence in the court and have a prejudicial effect on its influence. It had surprised him to hear the engineers’ representative, who had conducted his case with so much moderation at the time the award was before the court, use such extravagant language. The employers had asked that the overtime rate be returned to its original limit, but the court saw no reason for making such an amendment. The same provision had been made in other awards, and if a man worked until 10 o’clock at night he was entitled to time and a-half. Neither did the court see any reason why the night shift clause, brassworkers’ clause, or piecework or preference clauses should be amended. As regards the catalogue work and apprentices’ clauses, however, the court had come to the conclusion that an opportunity should be given to the employers to bring evidence on these points. The court saw no reason why the application to suspend the boilermakers and metalworkers’ award should be granted. The engineers’ award would be suspended only as far as the apprentices and stock catalogue provisions were concerned. COMPENSATION CLAIM. AVELLINGTON, August 16. In the Arbitration Court to-day, Mr Justice Stringer presiding, George Logan, aged 42 years, air ironworker residing at Kilbirnie, claimed compensation from Messrs Johns, AVallace, and Muir, ironfounders, AVellington, on account of an accident alleged to have taken place on February 2. The statement of claim was to the effect that plaintiff had been in the defendant’s employ for some two years. On the day in question he was carrying a hundredweight bag of coke, and was trying to throw it on top of some other bags of coke, when his foot slipped, and in the endeavour to recover himself his heart was strained. He had since been unable to work, and was now permanently disabled. The plaintiff claimed an order for 30s a week, half his full wages, from the date of the accident, or, as an alternative, such a lump sum as the court might award. In the course of his evidence the plaintiff stated that at 16 years of age he had had an attack of rheumatic fever, but he had since made a good recovery, and had up to the time of the accident enjoyed excellent health. He had been employed in carrying coke about 20 times in all during the two ‘years he worked for the defendants. The bag he slipped with was the ninth he had carried that day. Two or three medical men gave evidence on each side there being some conflict of opinion as to whether the symptoms taken in conjunction with the history of the case pointed to a sudden strain due to the accident or to progressive heart Mr Hislop, for the plaintiff, quoted decisions of Lord Loreburn, Lord Macnaughten, and others to the effect that the pathological state of the plaintiff was no bar to his claim for compensation in case of accident. Mr Monteath, for the defendants, said ; “ It just comes to this : that no man will be able to get employment unless he can show a clean bill of health.” His Honor : “ Certainly, that must be the case, or the insurance companies will have to charge bigger premiums.’’ The court reserved its decision.