ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16494, 3 August 1921, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS, The —Christcliurcb sittings of the Arbitration Court opened yesterday, before his Emor Mr Justice Frazer, and Messrs J. A. M’Cullough. ("workers’ represents tire), and W. Scott (employers’ representative.) CARPENTERING AT CHRIST’S COLLEGE. An application to add Christ s College to tho carpenters’ and joiners’ award was made by the union. Mr E. C. Sutcliffe. .on behalf of tne union, protested against a previous application by the union of a similar nature havingbeen struck out at the last v-itfcing of the Court in Christchurch. He alleged that the case was struck out in consequence of a letter having been received outside of the Court, and that there was no appearance in Court of tho parties. He said he thought such procedure a reflection on the Court s integrity. . , A <* j don’t think you need talk like that, said his Honor. “So far as my recollection goefi it was received irq open Court.” Mr Sutcliffe said that at present only one man was employed at Christ’s College as a carpenter, but in view of the prospective work. the union desired that the college should be made a party to the award. After evidence had been given by Mr E. tt. TTebb, burear of Christ’s College, decision wa3 reserved. NEWSPAPER WORKERS’ CASE. Interpretation of fhe typographical award relative to work performed on New Tears Eve was involved in applications made to the Court. ‘There were altogether twenty-five cases, in which the plaintiffs were employees of th© “ Lyttelton Time 3 ” Company, Ltd., or of the Christchurch “ Press ” Company. Ltd. The newspaper companies were the defendants The cases were grouped under the headings of M. Woodward and others v. the “Lyttelton Times” Company, Ltd., ana William Dew and others v. the Christchurch “Press” Company, Ltd. Mr O. T. J. Alpers, who appeared_!or the defendants, said that the cases could all he hoard together. He said he also represented the New Zealand Newspaper Proprietors Association. which was interested in the matter. He submitted that an interpretation filed in the'Court on February 12 was made under a misapprehension, and that the true interpretation was filed on October 20 last A case bad been stated by Mr S. E. M’Cartky. S.M.. for the opinion ot the Court. Tho Magistrate, stated that linotype operators and stone and bulk bands were cmploved by he “Lyttelton Company, Ltd., and lb© Christchurch I rene Compunr, Ltd., on the ere of Now A ear 3 Day last, they being night-workers. vor tins work they charged a days pay in addition to their week’s wages. Tho employers declined to pay the extra charge. Lne plaintiffs sued the companies in the Magistrates Court. They claimed that under the award they were entitled to roceive coilbie rate tor work performed on the eve of .or on Nev Year’s Day. The questions on which the opinion of "the Court were requested were:_ Are the plaintiffs entitled to payment m ■addition to their weekly wages for work performed on New Year’s Eve? If tlie answer is in the affirmative, arc the p amtins titled to such additional payment ordinary rates, or at double rates? , Mr W. J. Hunter opened the case for the employees. Tho case for. the newspaper companies was stated by Mr Alpers. He submitted that the interpretation which he alleged was incorrect was arrived at through a confusion of awards due to a coincidence of two awards being similarly dated, and also through confusion of technicalities. What in effect the pmplovees asked for was four days pa>y or its equivalent for one day’s work. Tne Court had no jurisdiction to award pay lor holidavs not worked

Mr Hunter submitted that wherever a man was: paid a weekly wage and the award prea'Cfxbsd double p?*y on holidays, and be wan required to work on a holiday, then no was entitled to liis weekly wage plus wo In reply to hia Honor Mr Hunver said he contended that piece workers should receive their ordinarv, pay plus 100 per cent for work done on holidays under such proMr Alpers said he held that there was no distinction in regard to the matter between piece or time workers. Decision was reserved. Concerning the Dominion printers and machinists’ award, Mr C. Renn, for Related Printing Trades Union, a«ked that payment for public holidays should be con * ridered as a matter of wages. He asked that the award bo amended accordingly. For the employers Mr F. Pirani submitted that the Court had no power to aw'ard payment for holidays not worked, and that such an amendment as was asked for might promote claims for treble and quadruple pay for working on holidays. Mr Renn said that ho must emphasise the very' great dissatisfaction existing .between two classes of workers in close proximity in the printing trade—the typographers and the machinists —because of the disparity in their remuneration. There seemed no good reason why they should not be placed on a level in regard to holiday pay. His Honor said that the question for tne Court to decide was its jurisdiction in the matter. Decision was reserved. BUTCHERS’ AWARD. An application was made by the Christchurch Operative Butchers’ Union, represented by Air R. D. Martin, that the master butchers in Timaru, Ashburton and "Waimate should be added to their award. Air I' -1 . Cooper objected on behalf of the employers cited. Decision was reserved.