ARBITRATION COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 69, 28 April 1914, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS. After THE SUN went to press yesterday the Christchurch sittings of the Court of Arbitration were continued, in the Supreme Court building. His Honour Mr Justice Stringer presided, with Mr J. A. M'Cullough as the assessor for the employees, and Mr W. J. Scott as assessor for the employers. DRAPERS' ASSISTANTS' AWARD. An order was made joining the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association to the terms of the Christchurch Drapers' Assistants' award. BOILERMAKERS' DISPUTE. In the dispute between the United Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Employees of Canterbury and Anderson and others, the Hon. J. E. Jenkinson appeared for the union and Mr Cooper for the employers. In opening the ease, Mr Jenkinson said that the workers' claims were on somewhat similar lines to those which had been put forward in the North Island, where the court had heard a great deal of evidence. Some of the proposals which had been placed before the employers were somewhat ambiguous, and he had had them amended to make their meaning clear. But in the clause referring to acetone gas work the meaning certainly had been altered. In the original proposals the union had sought to establish .that only boilermakers should do this work- The clause as only required that workers with acetone gas should receive 1/- per day extra. The executive of the union desired that nolle but boilermakers should do acetone gas work where nothing but boiler-work was concerned and where it had been done by boilermakers in ( . the past. Therefore he would ask the court to reinstate the first proposal on this matter. The proposal as to double time between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. and on holidays, which had been a vexed question in the North Island, had been taken from the New South Wales award.

Continuing, Mr Jenkinson-said that if the employers' representatives on the Conciliation Council had been reasonable the Court would have had less to deal with. The employers' assessors on the Conciliation Council had asked that the old award should be adhered to. That was not progress. There had been no increase in wages for years and years. The standard wage to-day, 1/3 per hour, was paid 25 and 28 years ago. Mr Jenkinson then quoted a return which he had prepared on official figures, taken , chiefly from-the Government Year Book, in which h§ showed that the trade in New Zealand had not suffered a set-back, as the employers had asserted. These figures showed that the numbers of workshops and of hands had increased, the value of the output had increased by 180 per cent., the output per man had increased by 33 per cent., the average wage had increased by 10 per cent., but the boilermakers' had not shared in this increase. The figures, added Mr Jenkinson, also showed that the employers were getting a very fair return on the value of their plant and materials. Fergus Ferguson, boilermaker at the Addington workshops, who had been in the Dominion for six years, deposed that the standard wage for boilermakers in Scotland was £2 2/6 per week, for fitters £1 17/8, for moulders £1 18/-, and for boilermakers' labourers £1 1/-. '' Dirt money"—that is, extra pay for dirty work —was a penny per hour. William E. Stephens, boilermaker, employed in the Addington workshops, gave evidence, in which he stated that his wages were 11/6 per day, and his helper's 10/-. William Albert Turner, boilermaker, in the Addington workshops, said he diad been doing acetone gas work for four years. He received 1/- per day extra while on that work.

John Moore, secretary of the Boilermakers' Federation, said that under the New South Wales award the payment for overtime between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. was double time, and after 7 p.m. time and a-half. That clause was intended to prevent employers from working their men right through without tea.

In opening the case for the employers, Mr Cooper said that the employers wanted the old award, with one or two amendments. When the matter was before the Conciliation Council the employers had not offered the boilermakers an advance in wages, because they simply could not, owing to the condition of the trade. He quoted figures to support the contention that last year the engineering trade in New Zealand showed a loss. Taking the Government 's census of industries as the authority for his statistics, Mr Cooper pointed out that while the population of the Dominion had increased by 13.5 per cent, in the period 1905-11, the number of boiler-makers had decreased by 35 per cent. The imports of boilers had .increased from £5391 in 1905 to £12,583 in 1912. He had to confess that the boilermakers were not getting very much money as workers. It seemed to him that the wages of 1/41 per hour had been struck a very long" while ago, and had stood there; the very highness of the rate per hour had brought this about. Outside the Government workshops there were 20 boilermakers in Christchurch, 61 in Dunedin, 50 in Wellington, and 115 ija Auckland. Frederick W. Anderson, of Anderson, Limited, gave evidence that his firm employed nine boilermakers. Some time ago, when the firm was making larger boilers than it did now, it employed 12 or 14. His men's earnings, including oveitime, averaged £l9O per annum. An increase in wages would seriously affect the industry. The former increase of wages had killed the manufacture of larger boilers.

In leply to Mr Jenkinson, witness said that the boiler-making trade in its piesent state was iu a healtliy condition. Evidence was also given by James Keir (managing director of P." and D Duncan, Ltd.), Henry J. Topliss (of Topliss Bros.), and G. Scott, jun. (of ocott Bros., Ltd.). Mr Topliss stated that he liad l)een quoted £l5O for a boiler locally made, but had imported one built to the same specifications at a total landed cost of £75.

Ihis concluded the Ohristchureh evidence, and the court adjourned until to-day. A COMPENSATION CASE. ADJOURNED FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE. The Court resumed its sitting at ten o'clock this morning, before his Honour Mr Justice Stringer. Mr W. J. Scott was assessor for the employers and Mr J. A. M'Cullough for the workers. Laurence M'Guire, of Ohristchureh, labourer, claimed from Frederick Chinnery, of Woodemi, /laxmiller, the sum of £375, being the amount of damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as the result of an injury received while in the defendant's employ. Mr Malley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Gresson for defendant*

The accident happened an September 21, 1913. Plaintiff, it was alleged, was assisting in working the flax scutcher on the defendant's flaxmill at Woodend, handing the tow to the person working the machine. While so engaged plaintiff was drawn into the spindle and whirled round, with the result; that he suffered serious injury, his left arm being torn entirely from his body, which was injured also.

The defence was that neither on the date in question nor at any other time was the plaintiff in the employ of the defendant. On or about September 21, 1913, the plaintiff had come to the defendant's mill and asked for wofk. He was told that there was no work for him. The fact of the accidents and' its details were admitted.

Mr Malley said he had hoped to have the plaintiff present, but he was in Masterton and could not be here. Mr -Gresson, however, had offered to call his witnesses and. go forward with the case, subject to his Honour's permission.

Mr Gresson said that he believed Mr Malley had only one witness, the, plaintiff. The defendant had four witnesses to show that plaintiff was not an employee at the time. The defendant was covered by insurance, so that it was merely a matter of fact to be cleared up. Mr Gresson called Frederick Chinnery, the defendant, who deposed that he had.the flaxmill at Woodend. He remembered Sunday, September 21, 1913. On that day M'Guire came to his house and asked for work. Witness told him he had no work to give him, but thai; his neighbour, Bowie, would give him a job potato picking. Plaintiff then went away, but came back in the afternoon to ask where the po. ato digging could be obtained. Witness showed him and saw him going in that direction.- Witness heard the scutcher start at about ten o'clock at night, and went to it. Rule, a contract scutcher, was at work. M'Guire was there with Rule. They had no busfness to scutch on Sunday night, so witness asked what they were doing. He had not known them to start on Sunday before. Witness saw M'Guire hand a few hanks of fibre to Rule. , One caught round M'Guire's arm and the shaft, and he was swung round. As to the work Rule was doing witness.had never had two men engaged upon it. Witness had not been there more than five or ten minutes before the accident happened. It was not unusual for those who went into the mill to give a hand to the men there; but witness did not think he was responsible for all these. • To Mr Malley: M'Guire's left arm was torn off at the shoulder and his right arm injured. The scutcher was a dangerous machine, but one man would never put another upon it unless he were experienced. The machine was enclosed except for a short length of spindle which came out at the sicle. Witness had intended to cut it off before starting the machine, a new one, but these men started work on Sunday night unknown to him. Since he had had the spindle cut off close to the machine.

His Honour pointed out that the action was being brought under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act, and not at common law. The question of dangerous machinery did not come in, nor was the accident itself -The witness continued that M'Guire had been engaged by witness's brother to cut about two tons of flax. Witness's brother, who was working as a driver for him, had bought the flax by the road. Witness bought it " on the lorry,'' they having cut, stacked, and loaded it. Witness did not order the man away from the scutch house because there was a man working there at the time.

To Mr Gresson: It was because M'Guire had finished the work for his brother that he came to witness to ask for a job.

Worthington Rule, scutcher, gave evidence that M'Guire came to the shed while Pitiless was at work. Witness did not know him. M'Guire did not speak, but just nodded. Witness worked on, and took little notice of his presence. M'Guire presently asked if it had been witness he had seen coming down the road, as he had thought it was Chinnery, and had got over the hedge so as not to be seen, as he in- ' tended to sleep in the shed. Witness had always, picked up his own fibre, and had not asked M'Guire to help him. Herbert Nicholson Bowie, of Woodend, farmer, whose place is next to Chinnery's;,,gaye evidence that on the Sunday afternoon M 'Guire came to witness for work. He said he had been sent by Mr Chinnery and was given the job, being told to start at 7 o'clock in the morning. M'Guire had tea, and half an hour after went away to the boardingliouse. Mr Malley had no questions toask. His . Honour pointed out that the statement of claim was reticent as to the terms of employment. Mr Malley said he had intended to make the plaintiff's evidence prove those things. John Edward Keeper, lodging house keeper, Woodeud, said that M'Guire had stayed in his place on the Saturday night, being paid for by Mrs Arthur Chinnery. --M 'Guire came back . and asked for a bed on the Sunday night, but as the house was full he had to be refused. M'Guire then said that he was to start work potato digging for Nicholson. This concluded the case. •His Honour told Mr Malley that on the present facts it seemed that it would be very difficult to establish a case. Mr Malley said hey recognised that, and would confer with his client at the earliest opportunity and see then whether it would be advisable to go further with the case. His Honour added that so far there was 110 evidence of employment, but rather that the man had taken another engagement. The case was adjourned until the next sittings.

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS' DISPUTE. This Afternoon the court resumed to hear the argument in the Canterbury Carpenters and Joiners' Union's request for an award. There were several clauses in dispute, and these were dealt with seriatim. Mr F. A. Moody, with him Mr W. J. Ashby, appeared for the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. The Htfn. John Barr, with him Mr F. C. Eldridge, appeared for the Canterbury Carpenters and Joiners. Mr J. Maynard represented the employers. Mr Cooper appeared for the Lyttelton Harbour Board and the Christchureh Gas Company, Ltd., and asked for those bodies to be exempted from the proposed award. Mr D. G. Sullivan represented the Christchureh Furniture Workers' Union. .Mr Cooper asked that the precedent laid doAvn by Mr Justice Sim in the Painters' Award should be followed. The Harbour Board had never been a party to the award, though the Gas Company had. Vlr Moody objected to the exemption

on the ground that both bodies employed carpenters, on the same terms as if they were serving contractors. His Honour asked how they would distinguish between the painters' dispute and the presentMr Cooper said that he believed the Gas Company had not been exempted, as Mr B. C. Bishop had not been present. The Hon. J. Barr said that to the best of his belief Mr Bishop had appeared and had been heard. Mr M 'Cullougli said that his memory on the point was the same as Mr Barr's; but the matter -had come up so often that a mistake would be easy. His Honour said that that would be all right. The papers could easily be looked up. Mr Cooper said that the Gas Company employed one carpenter only, and lie was used by the maintenance department. Mr Barr said that he agreed with his Honour that if wa.g€s and hours were settled for the company there could be little else left unless it were the question of overtime.

Mr D. G. Sullivan gave notice that his union desired the introduction of a clause which would cover the furniture and cabinet trade workers. The representative of the employees had no objection to raise. Mr Cooper protested strongly against these continual alterations, of which definite information had not been given to the employers. These alterations after agreement had been reached were, altogether too frequent. His Honour said that correction of mistakes of idea, clerical errors, and such things must be permitted. Mr Cooper again protested at great length, stating that if such corrections were permitted the employers would have to disregard conferences before the Conciliation Commissioner and would have to go straight to the Court. His Honour said each case must be considered upon its merits, and these present alterations did not seem serious. The Hon. John Barr again stated that those he represented had no objection to the Furniture Workers' Union's suggestions. The Hon. John Barr protested against certain alterations in the dinner hour al-

lowed for in the award. He asked for a fixed dinner hour.

Mr Moody said the clause objected to had been put in to suit the custom in Bangiora and elsewhere. Mr Cooper said the provision he believed would be advantageous in both the country and the town. Mr Moody suggested an amendment to allow country workers to be paid according to agreement, and not necessarily once per week. The Hon. J. Barr and Mr Cooper had no objections to offer. Mr Moody stated that his Union had done all that it could to bring the two unions together. His had forty branches and 5000 members, and he could not see the need for two unions in the trade. His unions recognised the others as unionists, and did not object to the preference clause. -> His Honour said that if Mr Moody's blandishments would not bring the other union in they could not expect the Court to be able to do much.

The Hon. John Barr having been heard, his Honour said that, as these things appeared to have been discussed before, they need go no further into them.

The Hon. J. B'arr referred at length to various sub clauses and provisions to which his union objected. He made a point that the under rate man who desired a permit to work should have been employed in the trade for at least five years. This clause had been part of an agreement made into, an award afterwards. It had always been urged by the Canterbury carpenters. The Christchurch carpenters had always tried to keep a high standard, and to avoid having their ranks filled by "bush carpenters." Further, the fact that there was no minimum militated against the making of good tradesmen. As to the preference clause he asked that it should be made to apply to all engaged in the trade. His Honour: You want to force them into the Union? The Hoh. J. Barr: That is what it comes to, your Honour. His Honour: You would say that they must join the Union on penalty of losing their employment? J. Barr: To be replaced by a

Unionist. We merely ask they shall pay 3d per week and support the Union in return for what it has done for them during the years they have been at the trade. They can have no "conscientious objections," whatever they may be. ' In answer to'his Honour, Mr Maynard said the builders had very little time for underrate workers, and that trouble did not exist to any extent in Christchurcli. His Honour asked whether if that was the case they could object to, it being declared that the underrate worker should be a journeyman, or should have worked five years as a carpenter. Mr Maynard said that that was not what was meant. His Honour: So you can have no objection to an alteration which made it clear that the underrate worker should be a carpenter? This was to be an award for carpenters, and not for others who might care to work at the trade". In. answer to his Honour, Mr Moody said it was the intention that the under rate clause should apply to "carpenters and not to those who would merely take a job. Mr Moody asked that the award should cover the whole of Canterbury north of the Kangitata. His' Honour said he supposed there could be no objection to that course. Decision was reserved. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow.