DEADLOCK AGAIN FACES COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18585, 10 October 1928, Page 9

DEADLOCK AGAIN FACES COUNCIL.

DISPUTE WILL GO TO COURT FOR RULING.

The Conciliation Council was faced with a deadlock again today.

The dispute was brought by the New Zealand Federated Moulders’ Association of Workers against the New Zealand Federated Ironmasters’ Association and other bodies. The point raised was the same as in the general engineers’ dispute yesterday, Mr W. Cecil Prime, for the employers, asking that the proceedings should be adjourned to enable the Arbitration Court to decide if there should be one award in the whole engineering industry or several awards covering different sections, as asked by the employees. The Commissioner (Mr W. H. Hagger) faced six assessors and one agent (Mr F. R. Barter) for the employees, and two representatives of the employers, Messrs Prime and J. Black. Mr Barter said that the employees were opposed to a general award, which was not suitable, there being different conditions in the moulding section. He wished to protest against the methods followed in connection with the dispute, especially in fixing the dates. The clerk of awards in Dunedin would not accept papers from the national secretary of the employees’ organisation. A Denial.

A remark by Mr Barter in regard to an advantage being secured by the employes brought from Mr Prime “an emphatic and unqualified denial.” Mr Barter: There is no question abor< it. We might as well understand each other. Mr Prime: If you suggest anything of that sort, it is quite untrue. The Commissioner explained that the date of hearing was fixed by him in order that the series of Jisputes in the industry should be heard continuously. The clerk of awards in Dunedin, he said, probably refused to hear the dispute until the Minister had appointed a Commissioner and the date of hearing had been fixed. Mr Barter said that there was no cross-citation from the employers. The only dispute before the council was the present one. Mr Prime asked Mr Barter to withdraw his suggestion in regard to the employers. Mr Barter: I won’t withdraw it. What for? Mr Prime: Because it is not true. Mr Barter: I say it is. Mr Prime: I say it is not. I don’t like Mr Barter saying that kind of thing. I have assured him it is not so. The explanation of what happened is quite sufficient.

“Could Not Get Hearing,” Mr T. R. Thorn (Caversham), national secretary of the employees' organisation, said that there was a suspicion, whether it had grounds or not. The clerk of awards in Dunedin would not accept the papers, and the speaker could not complete them until the date was fixed. The employees’ citation was properly filed, but they could not get: a hearing. The employers were orderr. 1 to appoint six assessors to the piesent dispute. Where were they? If the employees were ordered to appoint assessors they would appear. Mr Barter: Is the matter endorsed yet by the Minister, in accordance with the Act?

The Commissioner: I cannot say. Mr Thorn: It lv>oks as if the date could not be held back any longer, and the thing has been rushed through. Mr Prime: We are like a Tot of children. Mr Barter: Oh, cut out those remarks. Mr Thorn said that the point wa? what happened in Wellington, not what happened in Christchurch. -Men had come to Christchurch from Auckland and Dunedin, and would have to go back again without doing anything. The proceedings were making fools of people. “No Point.” Mr Prime: I’m prepared to send the dirpute to the Court in any way you like. The other side seems to think we are trying to point. We are not trying to secure any points at all. We are quite aboveboard. We simply want one award for the whole industry. If the Court sends us back to the Conciliation Council we will have to meet you on the same basis as before. What does it matter about having six assessors? One can fix it as well as six can. Mr Thorn: It is making a farce of the Conciliation Council. Mr Prime moved, and Mr J. Black seconded, that the dispute should be referred' to the Court for a ruling as to having a general award. The following amendment by Mr Barter was carried:— “That the case should be referred to the Court, with no recommendation, but the reasons given shall be that no settlement could be arrived at because the employers have not sent assessors along, nor are they willing to discuss the claims in any shape or form.” Employees’ Claims. The employees claimed forty hours a week and 2s 9d an hour for journey men iron, brass, plate, and machine moulders and core-makers, moulders engaged in moulding for steel, or in steel casting, to receive 2d an hour more than general moulders; overtime, double ordinary rates. The employees’ assessors were Messr.-. f. R. Thorn (Caversham), J. Thomson lDunedin), A. Jones (Christchurch), J. C. Davidson and S. Thomas (Auck land) and A. Black (Wellington), with Mr Barter as agent.