CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3369, 8 November 1911, Page 3

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

LABORERS’ DISPUTE. APPLICATION LOR .AN AWARD. The Conciliation Council met at the Magistrate’s Courthouse yesterday to consider the Poverty Bay and East Coast Builders, Contractors and General Laborers’ Industrial Union dispute. The Council comprised gdessrs T. liarle Giles (Commissioner), G. Smith, J. Colley and H. JToare (assessors for the employers), J. Carey, J. Longmore and J. Angus (assessors for the Union). Messrs W. F Coder wall, W. S. Blade, R. Robb and F. H. Lawton represented the employers, and Mr A. H. Anderson represented the- Union. Messrs J .Townley and J. W. Witty appeared for the Gisborne Harbor Board, and Mr p. D. B. Robinson, Town Clerk, represented the Borough Council. The Commissioner pointed out that the dispute was somewhat out of the ordinary run, for it was an application for an award that had not hitherto existed in this district. In most cases now' the disputes were simply for making an award to supercede a previous award ; but in this case it- was an application for a new award, and the basis of dealing with it would be somewhat different. The .basis of argument, where one award superceded' another award, was, of course, the previous award, hut m the present case it must lie other awards or agreements which existed in other parts of the Dominion. r ! he onus of substantiating and giving the Council reasonable grounds for their claims rested on the Union, and not on the employers. He asked that the dispute be conducted in a friendly spirit without personalities, recriminations, or anything that would mar the possibility of coming to an agreement. He saw no reason why the dispute could not be settled in a friendly manner. He pointed out the position of the Borough Council. He said he understood they had an agreement with the Union which was working perfectly satisfactory, but they were made a party to the dispute. The Commissioner then asked if there were any applications for exemption. On behalf of the Gisborne Borough Council the Town Clerk applied for exemption, as there was already an agreement between the Union and* the Council. Negotiations, he explained, were in progress for an agreement before the award was filed' by the Union. Mr Anderson said the agreement entered into between the Council and the Union was working most satisfactorily, 'flic agreement was arrived at during the time the application was being filed at Auckland with the Clerk of Awards. Mr Ccdcrwall said they would not oppose the application here, and it was granted. Mr J. Townley, on behalf of the Gisborne Harbor Board, also applied for exemption. His object for doing so was, he said, that the Board’s works were simply public works. They <1 ici not interfere with any other business or concern in the borough. They had had no dispute with their men, some of whom iiad been with the Board for twenty years. The Board was once cited previously, and was granted exemption. They were not working under an award at present. The Board was bound by the Act to call public tenders for any contracts exceeding £'.lo. Mr Anderson opposed the application, and pointed out that it was immaterial whether the money spent was public or. private money.He contended the Board had no greater claim to exemption than other employers.

Alter further discussion the Commissioner said he did not think that any hardship would devolve upon the Board by being joined so long as they did not commit a breach of the award. There was nothing to show him why the Beard should be exempted, but in any case, before finality was reached, the dispute would l come before the Arbitration Court, and they could then renew their application if they wished. The application was refused. The Gisborne Shcepfarmcrs’ Frozen Meat Co. and Messrs Nelson Bros, were granted exemption on the application of Mr Ccdcrwall.

Mr Cederwall then applied to have the following employers joined in the dispute:— B. Bannister, bricklayer; Geo. Brocklebank, carried; J. Brosnahan, carrier; Cook County Council; John East, builder; Evans, Nield and Co., builders; ll’ni. Gordon, carrier; Fred. Gray, plumber; Greig and Son, builders; Guthrie, contractor: J. T. Harvey, carrier; Andrew Hood, builder; R. Lewis, builder; F. J. Found, plumber; Jas. Malone, contractor; P. MeLouglilin, contractor; C. E. Olding, plumber; H. J. Peacock© and C’o., builders; Skeet and Co., builders; Alf. Wade, plumber; A. Webb, builder; H. Webb, builder; J. Webster, builder; Waikohu County Council; L. 'Wilkinson, builder; F. Wilkinson, plumber; Albert Williams, architect; E. P. "Williams, builder; J. Kane, plasterer; Westwood and Griffen. plasterers. The Commissioner pointed out that the Legislature gave him power that should not have been given. It should have provided that reasonable notice should be given to these parties. It was not fair to employers that they should lie rung in at the last moment. All ought to have an opportunity to be represented on the Council. The parties should be given at least seven days’ notice. He asked Mr Anderson to supply the employers mentioned with a copy of the claims, and the results arrived at so that if they desired they would- have an opportunity of appearing before the Arbitration Court when the agreement went up for ratification. Mr Cederwall said it- was not desired to do anything unfair in getting these names added, for their interests would be watched just the same as those of other employers. The names were then added. The Council then went into committee, and when they adjourned yesterday afternoon had settled the hours ol work, suburban work, tools, country work, under-rat© workers, payment of wages, conveniences and hours of work. The Council, on resuming at 11 a.m. to-day, will .consider rates of wages, overtime, holidays, sub-letting, preference, existing contracts, and scope and term of award.