ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7087, 1 May 1901, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING IN CHRISTCHURCH.

THE BOOTMAKING TRADE.

The Arbitration Court resumed its sitting in the Provincial Council Chambers to-day, before Mr Justice Cooper, President, and Messrs S. Brown and R. Slater, arbitrators loir the employers and the workers respectively. ' The dispute between the Federated Boot Manufacturers' Association, and the Federated Union of Workers again came before the Court.

The employers were represented by Messrs J. A. Frostick, A. H. Bridger and G. A. Coles,, and the workers by Messrs A. H. Cooper, S. O. Brown and) T. Woods. The Court had adjourned: at 11.30 a.m. the, previous day, to enable the parties to consider privately several points in dispute, and see if a mutual agreement could h* eomo to.

Mr Frostick stated that an agreement had beeri' come to between the parties with regard to all points except the conditions of labour in the rough-stuff department, the 'hours and the rate of wages. His Honor asked if it was possible to come to on agreement in regard to those three points. Mr Erostick said that he did not think so.

Evidence on behalf of the Union was then continued.

Charles Bock stated that he was a henchman, and worked an Wellington. He had also been employed in Sydney and towns in Tasmania. The difference between the systems of work in Sydney and in Wellington was such that he would be able to do nearly twice as many pairs <of -boots in Sydney as in Wellington. He worked forty-eight hours a week' in Sydney, and was considerably above the average in regard to speed. For ithe last lew months in Sydney he 'had earned from £2 10s to £3 a week on piecework. The average piece-work wage in Sydney, fhowever, was from 35s to £2 5s a week. The weekly wage there ranged from 35s to £2 Bs. The quality of boots in Wellington was (better than that in Sydney. Living was much dearer in Wellington than in Sydney. Considering the differences in the conditions of livings he thought that £2 10s was not too higb a, weekly wage in New Zealand. .

In reply to Mr Frostick, the witness said that 'he had' been told that the manufacturers in Sydney were satisfied; with the profit they made, but he would not say who had told him.

Mr Frostick read a portion of a letter he hack received from Sydney, stating that business -was a thousand per cent better in New Zealand than in the Australian city, in which it was simply dead. John Goodwill, a benchman employed at Messrs Hannah and Co. 'a, Wellington, stated that he' had; also worked at Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. In Adelaide the average rate of wages after the strike was from £2 to £2 10s a week, but the wages were regulated by the Manufacturers' Association. The weekly wfcge system was now adopted. In Adelaide and Sydney the hours were forty-eight a week. In Adelaide he earned £2 5a a week, which, however, was -not the minimum wage. The necessaries of life were much cheaper in Adelaide than in Wellington. Comparing the cost of«living in Australia with that in New Zealand, he thought that £2 10s would be a fair minimum wage.

In reply to Mr Frostick, the witness said that in Adelaide the manufacturers paid the men according to the value of their work. He himself, wording on piece-work, earned £2 7s a week.

Andrew Davie, another benchman, stated that he was employed at Messrs Sargood, Son and Ewen's, at Dunedin, and gave evidence with regard to different methods of work in different factories.

David Chisholm, a benchman ..at Messrs Hannah and Co.'s, Wellington, stated that me had been employed in England and. ■Scotland. When he left the employ of the Scottish Wholesale Company, v some years ago, the average wages were 335, and the hours fifty-one a w«k. His average earnings in New Zealand were £2 8s on piece-work. The New Zealand© workers were quite equal in ability to the Home workers. When the Scottish Wholesale Company reduced the hours from fiftythree to fifty-one, the same quantity of work was done. In Scotland, an employer paid his men more than the minimum wage if. he thought they deserved an increase. In reply to Mr Frostick, the witness stated that it was about eight months since he left Scotland.

Thomas Badfield, a finisher, employed by the Auckland Cooperative Boot Manufacturing Company, stated that the prevailing rate of hours in Auckland was fortyfive a week before the award was made there.

In reply to Mr . Frostick, the witness stated that when those hours ruled the men worked od piece. In reply to Mr Woods, foe stated that a number of men in Auckland were working at the' present time At weekly ' wages, under the forty-five hours' system.

Charles M'Manus, a finisher, also «an> ployed at the Co-operative Factory in Auckland, stated that he worksd for fortyfive hours a week, and earned £2 Is 3d on weekly wages. Previously he had eatrned 35s a- week on piece-work, working forty-five hours a week. If he had worked full time on piece he, would have earned between £2 and £3 on the employers' statement.

Questioned by Mr Frostick, witness said that 'he was not fully employed at present, owing to slackness in the work. The establishment had slack seasons. The men who were asking for an increase in the wages were able to earn it. He thought that the average wage now paid to finishers in Auckland was less than before the award.

This concluded the evidence for the XJnion.