ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 66, 17 March 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. The Huddart-Parker Company was charged at the Arbitration Court to-day .- . with a breach of the wharf labourers' award by engaging men at a place ot-er than that stipulated by the award. Tha : company admitted that a breach of-.t_B.v-. award had been committed, but tha. . question at issue was who was respon--, sible? The company had a stevedore,; who was partly a servant of theirs, .and, written instructions had been conveyed - to him that the provisions of the award should be strictly observed. This the stevedore had failed to do. The stevedore said that the employment of labour on the wharves was very unsatisfactory. Four days out of six,, owing to the scarcity which existed, men had to be engaged all over the wharf. The stevedore, Charles Wadley, was fined £2 and costs, and the case against \ the company was withdrawn. Other cases heard were the following: Alfred Palmer, Kaiwarra, failing to indenture an apprentice, £5 and costs; . Townsend and O'Sullivan, breach of the tinplate workers' award by not legally indenturing two apprentices, £5; James Johnston, livery stable keeper, breach of the drivers' award by employing, nonunionists when unionists were available, £5; Elizabeth Evans, breach of the tailoresses' award by leaving h<_r employers (C. Cathie and Sons) without giving stif- ..-:. ficent notice, 5/; W. P. Laws, employing a carpenter at less than the award rate of pay without a permit, £3; J. and 0. Ritchie, breach of the furniture trades - award by employing Benjamin Johnston as a journeyman machinist and polisher at a less rate than that prescribed by the award, £2; an employee. Da rev Ford, .was charged with a breach of the tailors' I award in that he took an order for a _..": ; suit of clothes and had the garments made in a manner contrary to the pro- v j visions of the award, which provides that all "bespoke" work must, be done in the shop of the employer for whom it is performed', and for whom or by whom tha - order is taken, a fine of £2 was imposed; Rhimcs and Co.. for a breach of the tail- -. ors' award in conection with ''bespoke work, was fined £2 and costs.