§ 21. Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a workman employed in the Royal Army Clothing Department, and held by the Tailors' and Garment Workers' Trade Union to be a stock cutter in the sense of the definition of the trade board, is in receipt of a weekly wage of 51s., whereas the wage fixed for stock cutters by the trade board is 69s.; that men in the Royal Army Clothing Department, held by the trade union to be engaged in work which entitles them to rank as warehousemen and receive the minimum rate of wages for that grade, are classified by the Department as box porters and paid the minimum rate applicable to labourers; that stock cutters employed by the Department do not receive the special additional payment of 4s. weekly which all manufacturers of military clothing in the London area pay to men of this grade; and that employés of the Department in question do not receive wages for an annual week's holiday, as do the employés of the other manufacturers of military clothing in the London area; and whether, in order to allay discontent, he will refer the questions at issue to the Wholesale Tailoring Trade Board, the Industrial Court, or some other competent authority for settlement?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain King)I am informed that there is a case of a workman employed at the Royal Army Clothing Department paid at 56s. a week, not 51s. as stated, on whose behalf it is claimed that he should be paid as a stock cutter. Both this case and that of the box porters referred to in the second part of the question have been considered, and the War Office have no reason to think that the men concerned are in receipt of less 1278 favourable wages than would be paid for similar duties by outside firms. The box porters are paid a shilling above the minimum, and not as stated in the question. The War Office are prepared to submit to the Trade Board an agreed definition of their duties in order to satisfy the trade union as to whether the men in question are correctly graded, but it has not yet been possible to secure the agreement of the trade union to the definition of duties. With regard to the third part of the question, the 4s. has now been paid to the stock and measure cutters entitled to it. With regard to the fourth part, the Government found it necessary to refuse an application for paid leave for Government industrial employés generally so recently as last March, and an exception could not well be made in the case of the Royal Army Clothing Department. With regard to the fifth part, as all the points at issue are either under discussion or decided, I see no reason for the procedure suggested.