ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2501, 14 May 1909, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING IN GISBORNE.

BAKERS’ DISPUTE

A sitting of the. Arbitration Court was commenced yesterday morning. His Honor Mr. Justice Sim presided, and with him on the Bench were. Messrs S. Brown (employers’ representative) and J. A, McCullough (representing the workers).

■TM demands of tiki union were as follows: —A reduction or tlie hours of working from 54 to "48 hours weekly, and an increase in wages, viz: Foreman from £3 to £3 10s; second man £ 10s to £3; other hands £2) 5« to £2 10, It was also sought by the men that the day of the annual show should be recognised as a holiday instead of Anniversary Day. . The Masters Bakers’ attitude,, was that they were satisfied with the, present award, with the of the hour for commencing work, which they wished to have altered from 4 a.m. to 3 a.m.

Mr, 0. J. Yeale, of Auckland, appeared on behalf of the operatives, and the master bakers were representd by Mr. Clare.

Mr. Yeale opened the case for the operatives, and outlined the evidence he. proposed to call. He claimed that . work was being done by the journeymen in Gisborne to entitle them to receive higher wages than they were at present getting. The wages fixed by the * award were not always paid in Gisborne. none were paid'less than the stipulated wage, and a good many tradesmen were in receipt of a much higher wage than those fixed by the Court. This, he contended, was evidence that the business could afford to accede to the requests of the Union, although the trade had always been one of long liours, and for that matter, small pay. Mr. Veale, at this stage wished to read some letters and telegrams referring to the conditions of trade in the South. Mr. Clare objected, and liis Honor ruled that the documents were not strictly evidence.

His Honor suggested l that the evidence of -witnesses would be much more valuable. The whole question was if the bakers could get through the work in a week of 48 hours without overtime.

Mr. Yeale claimed that in the case of overtime, there was a corresponding benefit to employers as well as the man. Mr. Yeale went through •the demands of the Union in detail and proceeded to call evidence. John Walsh, journeyman baker, said that he was foreman for Mr. Erskine, and received £3 per week and bread to the value of 2s weekly. Five men, without their employer, turned out 10,500 loaves every week. Tlie average overtime per man every week was five hours, and they had two short days in the week, Tuesday and Thursday. They started work at 3 a.m'. every day, and" three batches of bread were completed by 10.30 a.m., after which they had half an hour for breakfast. Two further batches were prepared between 11 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. When they finihed baking on the short days at about 10.30 they were employed in white-washing and cleaning the bakehouse.

To His Honor: Under the present system they could not turn out the bread in quicker time without sacrificing the quality of the article. To Mr. Clare: Mr. Erskine came to the bakehouse about 6.30 p.m. and was there when he (witness) went. away. The country carts left about 10.30 a.m. but he could not say what time they returned. To His Honor: If the hours of work were made to be 48 per week there would not be much difference in the overtime. Frank Ladd, journeyman baker, also working for Mr. Erskine, cave ffinilar evidence. ■ To Mr. Clare; At present he was being paid for 59 hours a week.. M everything worked all right he thought they could get through in eight hoi. js. Arthur Swann, table hand for air Erskine, said that he was paid £2 os weekly. He corroborated the cviderce of the previous witnesses and ngteed with the opinion that 48 hours would be almost as good as 54. He was working in Napier for over 12 months pnor to last month. At first in Napier be was working fifty-one liours lor Mr. Tucker, being the only man employee in the bakehouse. After 'he award came in to force he worked 48 houis per week., and he usually had about two hours weekly overtime. The 4b loins system seemed to work satisfac) >my. He was assisted in his work by bis employer. „ . Arthur P. Hailey, manager of the Gisborne Co-operative Coy's, kukri v, said that up till a few days', ago he acted as first hand in the bauehouse. They turned out 4000 loaves a week taking about 6 hours, a day .except Saturday. It was necessary 'some:i.lies lor the men to be paid, overtime but nou always. His own wages were £5 per week, but he considered that they could not get through the work in 48 hours |a week. . , . , To Mr Clare :He did not consider that a baker turning out 11,000 loaves per -week, with a full complement of hands, -could do so in a- week of 48 hours. He did not think it would be unreasonable [for the Court to accept the employers ■option to start at 3 a.m. He was (quite certain that a bakehouse could not turn out its bread in a week of 48 hours. 1 George Frederick Taigel, manager for the Civil Service Bakery, said that he acted as foreman. His weekly output jwas about 3.600, and the amount- of overtime paid to each an an was about H horn's. His salary was £4 a wee's., and the overtime really depended on small goods. He thought that with only bread to make they could easily get through in 48 hours <a week. It the wages were increased and tin? hours reduced it would undoubtedly mean an Increase in the price of bread. ! Arthur Simmons, journeyman baker, hnployed by the last witness, said that if they had more conveniences at the take]louse, they could get through the ivork in shorter time. He was third baud and in receipt of £2 10s. weekly. - Bert Halligan, foreman pastry-cook (or Mr. Erskine, raid that' he worked fine hours a day Tor £3 os a week 1 lie vork varied and the value of it depenU*d quite as much on the employer as in the man. . : f This concluded the case-for the opera- ! For the master-bakers, Mr Clare eonended that the operatives had uttei ly ailed to prove their .case. On. behad fe the nidster-liakers he would ask tuat he old award stand with the one. exeption oi the 3 a.m. stmt ir,-stead Pa .m. ' ■ a- , His Honor: What do you offer as W pa pro quo. If- you got the 3 a.m. •art are you willing to concede the, K hours a week. ski Clare: No. vour. Honor, . . - s ikis Honor: Well, then the position £ i-.Vvj. yui come here a-iking a favor, id atV »ofc prepared to give anything;

in return. At the suggestion of His Honor Mr 'Erskine was called to-give evidence. He stated that 6 men and a boy were employed in the bakehouse. Work was started at 3 a.m. in order to let the carters get back at a reasonable hour. Ho was in favor of a 3 a.m. start from May to September. ,The actual time taken'to bake his bread was nine hours a day, and/ in addition there was) an amount of £ll a month for overtime for bread alono, Gin all goods being a different branch. His Honor: The Napier bakers agreed to a forty-eight hours’ week, what is the difference between there and here. Mr Erskine: The roads lire very much worse here. Hi; Jiongi-; The state of the roads Surely, doesn’t interfere with the baking of your bread. ‘Continuing, Mr Erskine said that Ins country carts could not get awa-r before 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m.. and did not return until about 8 p.m. To Mr Veale: He had agreed to pay double time for the hour before 4 a.m. but he now objected to do so. There was no compulsion to, serve the people in the ’country, but there was profit in it. If the demands of the journeymen were conceded bread would have to be raised -|d per loaf. He was satisfied that there would be no profit in the business if they were compelled to pay the wages asked by the men. This concluded the evidence, and after both Messrs Clare and Yeale had addressed the Court m. -riv. His Honor said that the Court would take time to consider the matter. PAINTERS’ DISPUTE. The Gisborne Industrial Union of Painters aplied for a new'award, the chief demands being that the rqte of payment per hour shall be increased from Is 3d to Is 4*d; that all painters doing woi'k in the country be allowed Is 6d per day, and if the cost of board be more than 15s the employer to pay the difference ;that the rate of nay_for apprentices be increased in the first year from 6s 6d to Bs, in the second year from 10s to 10s 6d per week. . Mr T. Williams appeared for the Union and Mr W. S*. Pryor for the employers. , , , Mr Williams said the old award had expired, and tne Union was compelled to apply for a new award. The increased cost of living made it necessary that the rate of pay should be increased. . , His Honor: What you want to do Ls to make the rate of. pay ,ior painters in Gisborne higher than in other places in the Dominion. This Court has refused to increase the rate in other Mr Williams held that the demands made were fair and equitable. He also asked for preference in the employment of unionists. He would call witnesses to supnort the demands. John Henry Hall, journeyman painter, said he had found the cost of living much dearer now than it was four years- ago. The bare necessaries of life cost £2 17s a year for himself, wife, and three children. His average earnings were £2 14s, and he was happily not in debt. His rent had increased 2s a Aveek in the last foui years. , , , To Mr Pryor: lie came from England ho had no capital, buo he saved enough money to pay the passage of his wife and children to Neiv Zealand. Four painters had been forced to leave Gisborne recently through scarcity of work. Elijah R. Atkinson, journeyman painter, who had been a master painter, said he found that the cost of living in Gisborne had increased during the past four years. He Ava 6 a foreman painter now, and received £3 10s per week. He now paid 14s 6d a Aveek rent, and - found all the commodities of life had gone up in price. Peter Morris, journeyman painter, said he found that board in tlie country cost 14s 6d a week for the plainest food. His a Average earnings Ai'as £2 35s a week -all tlie year round. Mr. Pryor asked that Messrs Nelson Bros, be made exempt from the ward. In regard to the increase in the demands, lie. . held that the Union had failed to justify its application. The, cost of living in Gisborne ivas lower than in other centres. He would call evidence to show that such ivas the case. The employers agreed to the old award in its l entirety, but objected to the preference clause. A. Doiving, manager for Messrs Nelson Bros., gaA'c evidence that his firm only employed three men Avho did painting work in their spare time. The men were really bargemen. George Smith, builder and contractor, said he employed painters. He found business not as good now as it was a year ago; when he employed 40 hands as against 20 hands now. The price at Avhicli work was taken aa as loAver now* than it used to be. He thought labor absorbed two thirds of the price of a painting job. W. J. Cox, grocer, called by Mr. Pryor, produced a statement of the cost of the commodities of life hoav and four years ago. There was a difference m favor of the present time, John Maynard, butcher, produced a statement showing, that the price of moat was lower now than in 1906. Edgar Maude, solicitors’ accountant, gave” evidence that the rent- charged for houses in Gisborne now was less than four years ago. James Morrison, master-painter produced a statement showing that the average wages earned by painters were from £2 9 to £3 ss. He thought an increase of wages would mean a decrease of work. ~ Henry Joliffe, foreman for -Messrs >' • Hall and Sons, also produced a statement showing tlie average earnings of painters. Work ivas very scarce at pie- ** Mr Pryor, in reply, submitted that the, evidence, did hot justify the de*.; mands. but if anything, a reduction in AVages. , , Mr Williams minted the Labor Departments’ publications to shoAV that fuel and groceries were more-costly in Gisborne than in other centres. His Honor intimated that tlie case would be considered before an award was issued, and the Court adjourned.