TYPOGRAPHICAL AWARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19811, 1 December 1919, Page 10

TYPOGRAPHICAL AWARD.

COMPOSITORS' PIXAL APPEAL At- the conclusion of the hen ring of the application for the amendment of the Typographical Award before tha Arbitration Court at. Wellington on I Friday a'ftornoon, states the "Post," ! -Mr Robbie, in reply, said that the rea- ■ wn why the union had not quoted the j wages in Australia was that the awards there were fixed by compulsory arbitration. Wages in the past hatl been •based for compositors on All over thebasic wage or on the present basic wage of £3 17s 6d, a weekly wage of £4, 17s 6d. The workers had got- it into tlioir I heads that the Arbitration Court had | done them some harm, whereas the I Com+ had not given an award on its own investigations since 1912. The union was noff approaching the Court in order to reassure its members in view of the expiry of the award in March next. It the members of the union were not satisfied that" the Court would give them justice, the next dispute might, not come before the Court at all. He submitted thai; the Court could remedy conditions as well now as when the award expired. The union had been in communication with fellow unions all oyer the world, and this was in the nature of a final appeal for a share in the general prosperity of the Dominion. If the decision'of the Court Mas such as to advance the wages on tlnj ratio of a -IS per cent n'se of the cost of living, then he would be prepared to say the union would continue to have faith in the Court. Mr Pirani said the printers of New Zealand were honest, honourable men, not to be- moved by covoit thrcatti such as they had heard. His Honor said that, if the Court considered the other matters than the riso in the cost of living as relevant considerations in the evidence brought, forward, then it would hare to hear evidence in other districts . He was not clear that thes£ ma.t.ters were relevant within the meaning, hut. due notice would he given the parties to hearing evidence in other centres. If the rise in the cost, of living, was solely (considered ii. would be unneeesfla.i'y to hear evidence in other centres. The ■ Court would reserve its decision.