LABOUR.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12478, 15 September 1904, Page 4

LABOUR.

ARBITRATION COURT.

TIMARU-WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER

A special sitting of the Arbitration Court was held at tne Timaru Courthouse last evening, commencing at half-past seven, the presiding Judge, Mr Justice Chapman and the other members, Messrs S. Brown (employers' representative) and Slater (employees' representative), haying trrived from the south by the afternoon ixpress. . Mr H; M. Lee, Clerk of Awards, came from Christchurch to attend the sitting. I'llere were two cases to be dealt vith, and one of them was partly heard

'ast evening. CHRISTCHURCH MEAT COMPANY. The Christchurch Meat Company (Smithfield) were charged by P. Keddie, Inspector of Factories and Inspector of Awards, South Canterbury, on the information of the Canterbury Tanners, Felmongers and Skinners' Union, with breaches of awards of the Court made in August, .1901, and May, 1903, relating to hours and wages. There were two citations regarding hours, the first alleging that 25 men named were employed on Saturday afternoons, without paying overtime, contrary to the award of May, 1903, the second making the same charge in regard to 50 men. The latter ; .vas, however, an amendment of the first, which was accordingly withdrawn. The second charge was that the c-onipany had -ot paid the same 50 men the wages ordered 'o be paid to men engaged in such emiloyment as theirs, unskilled labour in a "elmongerv. The award wages are 10 id per lour, and" the wages paid to the men respectively for various periods within foureen months were 7£d and 9d. Mr J. W. White appeared for the complainant, and Mr T. G. Russell, of Christchurch, for' the defendant company. Mr Russell submitted that the first

"harge must fail, as the award did not so far as hours were concerned, apply to felmongers ; they were expressly excluded by the original award of 1901, and an extension of this award in 1903 did not ,'ffect the question of hours. The customs and conditions of that branch of business were to remain in force as before; and wool .scourers had always worked till 5 o'clock on Saturdays, and they had never objected to do so. There had been many rases in Christchurch affecting these workers, but that point had never been raised. Mr White replied, and quoting the heading of the 1903 award, " Judgment extend;ng the award to felmongers," argued that 'he original award, which fixed the " short •veek" for tanners, was now applied to "elmongers also.

Mr White said he was. taken rather by surprise, as he had a letter from counsel f nr defendants, admitting the offence, and stating that no defence would be offered. Mr Russell explained that this referred l o the other case; the letter was written before he received this citation.

After some argument, the Court consulted, and the Judge announced that the pase was dismissed, its there was nothing ;n the award of 1903 to show that it was intended to alter the custom of the trade to work on Saturday afternoons, and it vonld require an explicit provision to super--1 ede the custom. Under the circumstances

"he application could not be sustained. The question of costs could be dealt with later.

In regard to the second charge, of paying less than award wages, Mr Russell said he was instructed by. the. Company to admit that the award had not been carried 3 _ut, but. he would offer gome extenuating circumstances' to be considered in fixing the penalty. The Court would admit that it was very unlikely that a company like the Christchurch Meat Company would intentionally depart from an award from any sordid motive. The company was charged at Christchurch two or three months ago with a similar breach,in respect of five men, and it was admitted that there had been some negligence. In consequence of that case, and to prevent any repetition of it, circulars were sent to the Company's branches—(a copy put in)—drawing the attention of the managers to the award. Unfortunately, it appeared, a statement of. other claims by the Union, which had not yet been made an award, was sent down at the same time, with an intimation that no notice need be taken of this; and the manager of Smithfield by ■some misapprehension took the intimation" to refer to both documents. The Com- ! piny had not benefited financially by paying lower wages, 'because they calculated the cost of working up the wool and allowing a small margin of profit; and they paid the farmer the balance of the product values for his skins.. If the Company had paid higher wages, they would -:imply have paid the farmer less for his skins. Mr Russell proceeded to explain that these employees were not cajpable of earning the award wages, and if the Company had to pay these wages they would ">ave got more efficient workers. He also inserted that the men knew that they were vorking under the award rate, but ac--epted the lower rate in, order to get the employment, and now were trying to get the Court to _ give them the full rate ; under these circumstances, he submitted, 'he Court would not order that the back wages be paid to them. His Honour said that in cases where men acquiesced in the low wage and held back, the Court had ordered the employer to pay, but had hot ordered the money' to be paid to the men. Mr Russell proceeded to deal with a few of the individual cases, and to remind' the

Court that the men themselves were' also liable to be finod for accepting less than award wages, -unless they nad permits to xccept loner wages. The Court woulc ,iot permit men to take the benefit of employment that otherwise would not- be given to them, and then give them full wages that they could not have earned. Mr White combatted Mr Russell's statements." He said this had been a. persistent case of non-payment of.award wages, by which the Gpmpany had saved about £SOO in fourteen months. That might not be exact, but it- could be checked by the wages books, and it was approximately that amount. The manager could not have been so long under a misapprehension about the application of the award to Smithfield; and all the Smithfield wages sheets were checked at Christchurch, so that was another and definite source of correction for the alleged misapprehension. He was prepared to show that the foreman of the works knew of the award. He denied the incompetency of the men. The Company did not employ them out of charity. , In reply to the Judge, Mr Wlfite said the men were really ignorant of their rights, and probably they were satisfied as they .vere getting as much as labourers got in other employments, and they ;ook the rate offered them, knowing no better. Mr Russell agreed that was so, [t was only light work—boys' work. Mr White concluded his address by asking for a full penalty. He then calledsecretary of the Timaru branch of * the Union, which he himself formed, on July 2nd last, as a branch of the Christchurch Union. None of the men were members of the Uiiifju. A few had been members of a previous independent union formed at Smithfield. He described the formation of the Union, his inquiries regarding rates of pay, and the statements of the men. He asked them if . they were aware that- the award at Christchtirch applied to South Canterbury, and they replied that they did not know it, and they were quite surprised to hear that it did. He asked them if they had not inquired of the Company about it, and a' few said they had inquired and had been bluffed. As soon as these steps were taken the Company began to rectify matters by raising wages", and dismissing three men till they got permits; and he asserted that about 20 of the men had received £165 of back pay under the name of a -bonus. The men at the Pareora works were paid 7s a day, the award rate. Mr Russell cross-examined the witness at some length, and expressed more than x doubt about some of his statements. Referring to one of these doubts—that the ■neu did not know of the award—the Judge reminded Mr Russell that the manager himself was said not to be aware of it.) He 'asserted that while the wool work is light enough for boys to do, boys cannot be trusted to do "it properly, and boys are not employed at it. Mr White tendered as evidence the personal signed statements of 25 men made to the last witness, as the evidence the men were prepared to swear to. At this stage, at 10. minutes to 10, the Court adjourned this case till 10.30 next morning. Mr-White asked that a case Christchtirch Tailoring Trades Union v. M. G-. Holmes be called. Holmes was called, but did not appear. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.