THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3714, 19 May 1925, Page 51

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

AN AWARD THAT IS RESENTED. OPERATIVE BOOTMAKERS’ UNION S PROTEST.. The recent ward of the Arbitration Court has caused so much dissatisfaction amongst the members of the union that it was decided to publish the following protest:— The members of the Dunedin Operative Bootmakers’ Union desire to place o i record their protest against the Arbitration Court’s decision in fixing the wage Cor their industry. Despite the fact in Conciliation Council the employers offered \<\ per hour rise, unconditionally, which was refused, the court has only granted an increase of Jd per hour, making the present wage Is lljd per hour The Industry is a skilled one; it requires apprentices to serve five years before becoming journeymen, when they are entitle I to receive lha miserable wage of £4 5s 3d. This is for a full working week. When deductions are made for lost time, sickness, and holidays, the average will be found to l>e considerably less. In Australia the minimum wage in the boot trades is £4 lf»s—an increase of 78 per cent, over 1912, with a reduction in the hours of work from 48 lo 44 per week. In England for a similar period the wages have risen from 30s to £3 with a similar reduction in the hours of labour, whilst the New Zealand workers with a reduction of one hour from 45 to 44 have had their wages increased from £2 12s Od to £4 5s 3d—an increase of only •tlj per cent. Tho court has previously stuted in its opinion many of the workers were entitled to a higher rale, but lias failed to grant it. It lins been recognised by both tarties that to learn the operations of any one department requires an apprenticeship of five years. That being so, the apprentice at the end of that period is entitled lo the highest skilled rate which is at present awarded to the Australian boot worker, being equal to 15s per week übove the basi«* wage for unskilled workers. The amount lost to tho workers in the industry on account of tho increased cost of living has repeatedly been shown. Wages have failed to keep up with the increase in the cost of living, and taking the period of 1912-19 3 has resulted in a loss to ea< h male worker of an amount of purchasing power equal to £3OO. The facts and figures submitted to tho court in connection therewith have

never been disputed, yet the court hn» failed to do anything except to carry out •ts policy of the continuation of the 1914 standard of living. The court has also failed to protect the assistants. They have to serve five yearn before becoming journey women, yet they are debarred the privileges of apprentices because they are name dassistunts. A recent case was that a manufacturer who opened his factory during the Christmas holidays so that he would not have lo pay his assistants, and when some of them came to he immediately dismissed them by giving them 24 hours' : otice. When the case was brought before the Arbitration Court on the ground that a week’s notice was necessary, tho court’s decision was in favour of tLo manufacturer, but it made him pay tho girls for Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Another factory posted up a similar notice that it would remain open during the Christmas and New Year holidays, and none of the assistants came back. Tho employer refused to pay them for New Sear’s Day, and the Labour Department supports him in his attitude. The court was asked to give these assistants some •protection, but have refused to do any-: thing. The boot trade of New Zealand is % highly protected industry. The amount paid in direct taxation for 1923 totalled £252,915, whilst if duty has been assessed on boots and shoes made in New Zealand, ihe total would be £719,010, against £412,771 paid in wages, an excess of duty over wages of £306,239. The duty placed on footwear is for the purpose of protecting the industry and to enable the manufacturers to give decent « wages and conditions. If the court If unable to grant this with the present high tariff, then it is for the people to say whether the industry should be so pro-. • tected. In the opinion of the union the court haa failed to give the workers in tho industry fair and just treatment. If the policy of (he court is to accept the 1914 standard and to raise and reduce wages in accordance with tho cost of living and to ignore all eonmalies and injustices, then the Government Statistician should be called upon periodically to give such information, ami Gius save the time and money of ill* workers and the Government. Ever since the inception of the Arbitration Court the Operative Bootmakers’ Union has supported the principles underlying it, but such decisions as the recent one only tend to destroy the confidence of its members, as it appears that tho court shirks the duty with which it is entrusted. If tho court is powerless or unwilling to find a solution, and so remedy the grievances of the workers, then it should resign and let other persons carry out the duties of the Arbitration Court.