ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7677, 9 April 1903, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

'SITTING IN CHRISTCHURCH.

The Arbitration Court sat in Christchurch this mowing. His Honor Mr .Justice Cooper presided, and. Messrs S. Brown and R: Slatei- -were also present.

THE TINSMITHS' DISPUTE

His Honor .delivered the award in the tinsmiths' dispute. In doing so he said: — "This is an application for the Court to order that' certain parties, who have refused to sign an industrial agreement mude between the majority of the •employers and the Union, shall be brought under the terms of the agreement. With reference to .three of the parties cited, Messrs Falkiiider and Colvilie, Hement Bros, nnd Lucas Bros., the Union has, in our opinion, established' its case, and we therefore order that these parties shall bo bound by the conditions set forth in {"lie agreement, and have made an award accordingly. With regard to the meat companies and to Messrs Aulsebrook and Co. , when this trade first came into this. 'Court, in March, 1899, these parties were expressly -exempted from the award, the. conditions being, in the opinion of the Court, inapplicable to them. In Wellington, in .the same trade, the Court has also exempted the maat companies aad 1 persons who employ men to make tins for the purpose of enclosing only their own manufactures. The conditions and circumstances which existed in 1599 are not materially different now. It is apparent, and has, in fact, been admitted, that many of the conditions of the industrial agreement are inapplicable to such businesses. The work is not really skilled journeymen's work. Although no doubt it is work which i 3 sometimes undertaken by journeymen, the apprenticeship clauses are inapplicable, . and «o are many of the other terms of the ' agreement. Then, as regards the .hours- and other conditions of labour, the- reasons Which jiutifed the Court iv exempting the parties in 1899 still exist: It is impossible* for us to a-tteir.pt > to regulate- the conditions of labour iv 0113 deparnnerit only of these businesses) in a collateral dispute without having before us the full conditions of the work of the. factory us a whole.. The provisions of the) Act of '1901, which was passed for the express purpose of- enabling an award to< be made in one dispute involving a business Goiisistimg' of a number of departments, afford a reasonable and fair .way of dealing with such businesses,. but we do not see how we crn properly and satisfactorily deal withj one department only in what is a collateral dispute. The -present application is oiiefor the purpose only of applying the . .conditions of^the -industrial agreement to these parties. "In out opinion the conditions of this agreement ore inapplicable, and Clauses 2, 8, 9,10, 11 a/d 12. would be quite unworkable. We cannot, t&erefore, grant the application in respect to dho meat companies, Messrs Aulsebrook and Co., and Mr Edmonds. In, respect to Mr Jonathan Brown, he is a canister-maker only. If he is bound JbNy.-t.ho agreement h-o will "be unable to comply with the apprenticeship clauses, as ib is clear that ho ca.nnot fulfil any obligation to teach a youth the trade of a tinsmith or black iron worker. We do not, therefore, make any order in regard ...tohim."

|AN INTERPRETATION. His Honor gave an interpretation of the award in reppect to thei Canterbury Tanners' nnd Fellniongers' Union. He said that the decision of the Court given oh Sepb, 9; 1902, was sufficiently, clear in its terms, and as the Court intimated at the hearing of the; application at the last sitting of the Court no otlier answer could, be given. To define tho meaning of the word " tannery " upon a proceeding of that nature the Court considered would be improper and inadvisable, and it declined to reebnaider or to add 1 anything to tne deteision of the Court given in September litst. With reference to Clause 8 of the a\Vatrd, that clause was inserted at the request and by the agreement of the Union* and the employers. The Court had examined the notes and records of the proceedings at the hearing of the dispute in August, 1901, and that had been clearly stated. It was clear that the clause in question had no reference to workers employed on daily wages in or about a tannery, that class of labour being expressly provided for in Clauses 5 and 6a of the award.

BREACH OF AN AWARD

Thomas M'Naught, saddler, tif Amberley, was fiued £5 and costs for hrwioh of an award, by employii)g a. man a-t Waika-ri end paying/ him less than the minimum wage. The antotint of the fine was made payable to the Union. Mr Lomas, Inspector of Factories, grosecuted fox the TJ^jon.