THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 June 1921, Page 7

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

BITTING AT NEW PLYMOUTH. THE BONUS AND AWARDS. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held at New Plymouth yesterday, His Honor Mr. Justice Frazer presiding, and the assessors were: Messrs. Wm. Scott (employers), and. J. A. McCullough (workers). In the cases of the storemen and packers’ dispute, and the motor car and horse drivers’ dispute, awards were made in the terms'of the recommendations made by the Conciliation Council. In the Taranaki grocers’ award and printing trades award, outers were made adding certain parties. GENERAL LABORERS’ AWARD. There were a number of applications for exemption from the’ general laborers’ award. Mr. C. H. Wynyard applied for the name of H. Pennington to be struck out of the list of parties. He said that applicant was a brickmaker. It was a new industry, which had just been commenced, and" was not yet in operation in the way of commercial ’ dealing. The general laborers’ award could not apply to the brick industry. In other districts there were special wages governing these particular workers, but in New Ply-, mouth there was not a sufficient number of workers making bricks to provide an award. This, however, he should not place on an employer the obligation of having his men brought under another award. On behalf of the union, Mr. F. J. Lyons opposed the application. He said they had members employed in the industry, and though there might be one or two special instances all the other branches were merely intelligent laborers’ work. It was impossible for Pennington to say he did no,t employ general laborers. His Honor said some special clauses might have been put in the general laborers’ award to meet the case. The Court reserved decision. The firm of Duncan and Davies, Ltd., iwas struck off the list of parties to the award, this course being mutually agreed to. THE HARBOR BOARD’S EMPLOYEES The New Plymouth Harbor Board was among the list of parties for whom application for exemption was made. For the board, Mr. C. H. Wynyard protsted against their inclusion as a party to the laborers’ award. He said that under the old award the board were included; at that time the number of employees was small and the board’s name was entered by default.. Now the harbor board’s works' had grown, and conditions had altered considerably since the last award was made. When this dispute came before the Conriliation Council the board had no voice in making the award. They lodged a protest and withdrew. Clauses were inserted which applied practically in toto to the board, such as those governing wages of men employed on the dredges Paritutu and Thomas King. These men had been classed as general laborers, but they were deck hands. Though they might assist occasionally in shovelling debris, their occupation was more in the nature of seamen. The award also mentioned cranedrivers, who, obviously, were not general laborers. Mr. Wynyard pointed out that in a similar iristance as this application the Wanganui Harbor Board was granted partial exemption, and he asked this be applied in the case of the New Plymouth board.

Mr. Lyons, for the union, said that the men on the Thomas King came off the vessel and did navvying -work, and the board generally seemed-to. shift its employees around. The union had had a little difficulty with the board, who refused to recognise them. The board’s resident engineer (Mr. Lowson) was present to give evidence in support of the application. In reply to a question as to the handling of gravel, which was previously mentioned, Mr. Lowson said that the hoppers of the dredge were emptied by'gravitation, but the men sometimes gave, assistance with a shovel. They assisted generally in the maintenance of the Paritutu, and were dredge hands. His Honor said the Court would discuss the matter before giving a decision. THE NOVEMBER BONUS. The Timber Yard, arid Sawmill Workers’ Union (Mr. Lyons) made application for the November bonus and asked that the order be made retrospective. His Honor said the Court could not accumulate the bonuses back to November 1, but could grant accumulated bonuses. There was no objection raised to the application. The Licensed Hotel Employees’ Union also applied for the November bonus. Mr. Jackson (Auckland) appeared on behalf of the Union, and Mr. Grenfell (Wellington), representing the employers, opposed the application. He said they were already being paid the bonus. Mr. Jackson: It has not been paid. The employers in this industry never pay bonuses unless it is forced on them. Mr. Grenfell: It has been paid, and is being paid in New Plymouth. The union's advocate denied the latter statement. The Court reserved its decision. There was no appearance on behalf of the employers in the case of the restaurant and tea-room workers’ application for the bonus.