ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3997, 2 August 1915, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

SITTING AT GISBORNE. The members of the Arbitration Court — His Honor Mr Justice Stringer (president). Mr E. F. Duthie (employers’ representative), and Mr J. A. McCullough (workers’ representative) arrived by the steamer from south on Saturday morning, and opened a sitting of the Court at Gisborne on Saturday morning. LABORERS’ DISPUTE. Builders, Contractors, etc. (.Mr Pryor, instructed by Mr F. H. Lawton) v. Poverty Bay Builders’, Contractors’, and General Laborers’ Union (Mr D. W. Coleman). Mr Pryor pointed out that there was a recommendation in this case, but they were asking for a slight alteration. It affected clause 9. suburban work. A clause had been in operation for the past nine or ten years in this, and also in the, carpenters’ award, and l the parties had agreed to retain this provision, which specified for travelling expenses exceeding two miles. Since then, however, the employees had made a claim for the whole of the travelling. The employers naturally took it that it was the same clause, and had the same construction, and that the union was taking advantage of a point. If was contended that the workers had to travel two miles before they could claim travelling. His Honor asked if there was any objection. Mr Coleman said there was, and they were raising the same point in the carpenters’ dispute. Proceeding, he said the union had asked for a mile and a half as at Dunedin, and the clause in the recommendation had been accepted as an alternative. If the court gave the decision as now asked the Union would have given away something and gained nothing. Mr Pryor said that they could not accept the mile and a half. It would be quite unfair to ask the employers to accept this, as the two miles had been formerly agreed to. Mr Coleman submitted that * the conditions at Dunedin warranted the mile and a half, they certainly did here, and it was too much to expect men to walk four miles to and from work. His Honor said it seemed an extraordinary thing to him that after agreeing to everything else they should split over a matter representing ten minutes. Mr Pryor said that most of the men had bicycles, and a case had occurred in which the men had not only asked to be convoyed by the employer, butin his time. They were only asking that the agreed intention should be given effect to. His Honor said the difficulty was, what was the agreed intention? If he knew he would have no difficulty in giving his decision. He regretted the parties could not come to an agreement. He asked it the employers could not accede to the request, in view of the local conditions. Mr Pryor pointed out that the whole of the conditions had to be considered. His Honor said the court would consider the point. The other recommendations were agreed to. CARPENTERS’ AWARD. Regarding the recommendation from the Conciliation Council respecting the carpenters’ award, Mr Pryor said that the decision of the Court respecting suburban work in the previous case would apply to this. He also stated that he had advised the employers to accept the preference m the Dominion carpenters’ award. Mr Coleman consented. Mr Pryor also asked for a definite ruling of the court respecting the clause affecting rough repairs. PAINTERS’ AWARD. Mr T. R. Hall appeared in support 'of the acceptance of the recommendations respecting the painters' dispute. The employers were not represented, and the recommendations were adopted by the court. The Court will resume at 10 o'clock this morning, when the tailors’ dispute will be taken.