ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17192, 8 November 1923, Page 1

ARBITRATION COURT.

TO-DAY’S SITTING. The Arbitration Court .sat this morning. Mr Justice Frazer presided, with, him Mr W. Scott (employers' representative), and Mr 11. Hunter (workers' representative). INTERPRETATION OF AWARD. The question of interpretation of the carpenters and joiners' award, wnnli was belore the Court on Tuesday, was dealt with. Mr E. C. Sutcliffe appeared in support of the application made on behalf ot the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and J outers, and Mr F. Cooper employers' agent, appeared for the employers. The interpretation was asked of the following clause iu the award:—"The mini- . Jiium wage for: Carpenters and joiners and joiners' machinists shall be 2s 2id an hour for outside workers and 2s lid for factory At Tuesday's hearing his Honor remarked that the case was simple, but there might be a great deal behind it, while Mr Sutcliffe said it was a question whether an employer could pay two rates of wages to one class of employees. Mr Sutcliffe to-day enumerated the firms that were concerned in the award and dealt with the various classes of work done. He claimed that the carpenters at Aulsebrook and Co. did exactly the same classe of work as was done by " outside ” workers, and that, therefore, they were entitled to the higher scale of pay.. Aulsebrook's carpenters were well versed in the class of work required at the factory, and in consequence the work was carried out quickly and expeditiously. In this respect these carpenters were an asset to the firm. The -award made it clear what classes of workers were to he paid the lower wage. Mr 'Sutcliffe said that Aulsebrook's carpenters could not he said to come under the lower scale rate. They were engaged in the two classes of work provided for in the salary rate. ’This being so they were entitled to the higher rate No reason could be shown for a varying rate. Aulsebrook’s had paid tlie full rate —even making it retrospective—on certain •classes of work: but the union asked for a clear definition on a point covering wide ground so far as workers were concerned. Mr Cooper said that the Court’s meraor"andum on the matters concerned in the point in tlie award was explicit. The point was in regard to employment where time was likely to be lost through rain or other peculiar circumstances. The Court had dis tineely stated in its memorandum that, the difference in rate was to provide for possible loss of time as stated. That was all there was in the matter. The anpli cation had no merit. The award was perfectly clear. His Honor said talit the Court would give its decision in writing. The Court then adjourned until 0 a.m on the following day, when tlie compensation case. IV. Howatson v. F. R. Ford, will be heard..