OUR ARBITRATION LAWS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 200, 22 August 1904, Page 5

OUR ARBITRATION LAWS.

POSITION OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. IMPORTANT DECISION. ' A case of considerable interest to private persons who occasionally employ workmen was heard some time ago by the Arbitration Court, when Mr J. H. Hanuan. an Auckland draper, was charged with having committed breaches of the award in connection with the casual employment of workmen. In the judgment which Mr Justice Chapman (President of the Court) has just forwarded to Mr Thomas (Clerk of Awards) at Auckland, His Honor say>: The respondent was ' charged with having employed one Charles Harvey at less than the wage .set out in the award as the minimum wage for the employment of labourers, and also with having discharged Harvey and employed non-union men at less than the minimum wage. The award sought to be enforced was file Auckland builders ami contractors labourers* award of February 14, 1903 (Book of Awards Vol. IV., page 27). The respondent is a draper having no other connection with the award or the building trade than is implied in the fact that he was erecting a building for his own purposes. Reliance was placed on section 3(5 subsection 3 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1900, which is in the following terms: —'(3) The award by force of this Act shall extend to and hind as subsequent party thereto every industrial union, industrial association or employer who, not being original party thereto, is at any time whilst the award is in force, connected with or engaged in the industry to which the award applies within the industrial district to Avhieh the award relates.' "The decision was reserved so that I might hare the opportunity of discussing the question with the judges at the ensuing sitting of the Court of Appeal. I have consulted several of the judges, and they all hold the opinion with which I now concur (though at one time I held a different opinion), that the award does not bind a person in respondent's position. It is clear that he is not engaged in the industry to which the award relates, and the only question is whether he is connected with it. There are, however, several ways in Which a person may be connected with an industry without being engaged in it. The expression might, for instance, have been used by the Legislature to make sure of binding sleeping partners, persons who make a business of building houses for sale, and others who might not be considered to be actually engaged in the business, and other persons who have a like connection with other industries. Ah opinion to the contrary expressed m a case not argued by counsel (Cables* Case, Book of Awards" Vol. 1V.—334) must now be considered to be overruled. We have already had occasion to remark in the judgment of the Conrt in builders' labourers versus Clark, decided at, this sitting, that it would be a harsh step for the Legislature to bind parties who had no means of taking part in the formation of the award, but that there is uo such hardship in enacting that persons who cuter into business in any industry shall be bound to inquire what awards bind them. Here, however, there would be a hardship, as a person merely building his own house perhaps in a distant part of the country cannot be expected to give attention to the matter. Experience shows that the question, though important in principle, is of less practical importance than might be supposed, as it only crops up at rare intervals because persons are usually found to adopt the award rates. The application is dismissed with £2 2/ costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the Clerk of Awards."