COURT’S DECISION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 38, 24 November 1938, Page 5

COURT’S DECISION.

BRIQUETTES ARE NOT COAL. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 23. “The question for decision really amounts to this. Are earbonettes or briquettes coal?” said Mr Justice O’Bogan (president of the Court of Arbitration) delivering; his opinion on an application for an interpretation m a clause in the New Zealand (except Westland) drivers’ award. The application was made by the inspector of awards at Auckland.

The clause in question directs, inter alia, that drivers employed in loading or unloading more than live tons oi cement, basic slag, plaster, basic phosphate, guano, otr lime on any cue day, in loads of more than one ton cacti, or drivers ..employed in handling! coal in any quantity ,in sacks exceeding ISOlb net weight, shall be paid at the rate of Id a ton extra, for each toil handled. The provisions relating to the handling of coal will not operate until six months after the making of the award. The question on which the Court was asked to give; an opinion was whether the amount of Id a ton was payable in respect of the handling of earbonettes and briquettes in any quantity in sacks exceeding 1801 b net weight “The evidence showed that, although coal is the major ingredient in cii|rbonetfces or briquettes, other material is added, and a special process is performed in manufacturing them,” said his Honour. “A similar question is whether bread is flour, simply because flour is the major ingredient of bread. The answer to the question is ‘No.’ ”