ENGINEERS' DISPUTE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 366, 13 April 1915, Page 8

ENGINEERS' DISPUTE.

BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT. The Arbitration Court this morning heard the dispute between the Canterbury Engineers "-Union and the employers. Mr S. J. Elston appeared for the union, and Messrs W. Pry or and F. Cooper appeared on behalf of the emi ployers. I Mr I'ryor asked leave to put in 1 • j amended counter proposals, the chief features being an amendment, to the rules in regard to'""illness or default" in respect to apprentices, and to substitute the preference clause embodied in the typographical award, instead of the obsolete one in the existing award. Mr Elston objected to the proposals, and they were held over uuti'l evidence was heard. Mr Pry or asked the Court to hold the making of an award over, in order to hear the cases brought forward by the Moulders 7 and Boilermakers' Unions, and make the three awards simultaneously. Mr Elston objected to the suggestion, which would mean delay. The Court ruled that as the award was a Dominion one it would hear evidence in other centres before making an award. * Mr Elston, in addressing the Court, said they were asking for a Dominion award. His union had not received any increase in wages for seven years, and in that period the cost of living had increased by fully 30 per cent. They asked for a 44-hour week, as* against 47 now ruling. No reason existed for engineers working longer hours .than plumbers and men in similar trades. They claimed time and a half for overtime up to 10 p.m., and double tii.>e between that hour and starting time next morning. The union was strenuously against 1 ' systematic overtime." They asked for double time on holidays', as against time and a half in the old award, and a 50 per cent, increase, for night-shift work, as again 20 per cent, under existing conditions. There were many other claims and amendments. The union asked for 1/8 per hour, a rate which was on a par with trades considerably less skilled than engineering. _ . His Honour: You do not take into consideration the state of the trade. Mr Elston: Competition, I take it. We will deal with that later oy. A leading hand should be paid 25 per cent, extra. The uiiion was strongly opposed to the "premium-bonus scheme" and piecework in all forms. Mr Elston asked that the apprentice in his last year should be given a substantial increase in wages as it was essential that an engineer should travel to gain experience when his apprenticeship expired. His Honour: Do you suggest that the employer should pay for this? Mr Elston: It is in the interests of the employers to have efficient workmen, and this would tend to make workmen more efficient. Messrs P. and D. Duncan insisted on their apprentices attending the University engineering classes, and paid the fees. If they passed certain examination*, the firm paid them a bonus. A limitation of apprentices should be grauted." He quoted an instance of an Auckland workshop where apprentices were employed to eight 'journeymen. They suggested one apprentice to four journeymen. Another suggestion the union made was the setting up of a board to periodically examine the apprentices. If a youth did not make himself proficient the employer could withhold the increase in wages payable under the scale. The union objected to the inclusion of the "stock catalogue" clause, which allowed employers to pay [workmen a lower rate when manufacturing for stock. His Honour: Well, then, you say that no stock rate should be in the award. That would surely mean unemployment at times. Mr Elston: We would rather take the risk of unemployment than the risk of the abuse we are now subjected to. His Honour; Surely some safeguard i might be inserted. Mr Elston instanced where "stock catalogue " price was paid on a military waggon being manufactured for the Defence Department. At the same time the Petoue Government workshops were hurriedly making them, and paying their engineers 11/6 per day, while the Christchurch firm < were paying their men 10/- per day under "stock catalogue" rates. Only a threat of a prosecution by the Labour Department made the firm pay out award rates' on the work. Mr Pryor: These are fairy tales, which we can explain later. In concluding, Mr Elston submitted that the condition of the industry was good and warranted the increases asked for. Chas. V. Eraser, a turner at Add.ington Workshops, stated that his wages were 11/(5 per day, and he had worker! in three local foundries. In answer to Mr Pryor, witness said that he worked under Booth, Macdonald's bonus system, and earned as much as the average man. H. D. Newton, a fitter at the running sheds, stated that he was formerly at P. and D. Duncan's. He had experience of "stock catalogue" work, which was detrimental to the interests of the workmen. In answer to Mr Pryor, he said that mechanics for freezing works, mines, etc., had to come from the foundries. Alfred Martin, a brass finisher, said that his wages were 12/- per day for eight hours. Eleven shillings per day was paid in his establishment all the year round. Mr Pryor, in opening his case, traversed the claims of the union. They seemed to have beeu designed, he said, with the idea of killing the industry. One of Mr Elston's remarks that the workshops of New Zealand were largely repair shops was perfectly true, and that, was a point the employers wished to emphasise. The increasing cost of production was responsible for the decadence in the industry. The "stock catalogue" clause was designed with the object of building up the industry; The conditions of the industry rather demanded relief, and it was competentfor the court to grant relief. Claims were made that could hardly have been considered. The claims were made evidently with the object of completely -killing overtime work, which, under certain circumstances, it was impossible to avoid. The court had never enacted anything so drastic as the overtime suggestions of the union. (Proceeding.)