ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 244, 12 October 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

- AWARD CASES. The sittings of the Arbitration Court were continued this morning, before Mr Justice Sim and Messrs S. Brown and J. A. McCullough. THE MINIMUM WAGE. A rehearing of the case brought by the Department against . C. Clarke for a ■breach of the plumbers' award was granted, on the ground that notice had not been served on defendant. Clarke admitted that he w»s paying beneath the award rate. He did not think the work was worth more, and had intended to apply for a permit. His Honour said that respondent had not taken the trouble to read the award and ascertain his liabilities. He would be fined £3, TRAVELLING AND WORKING HOURS. Judgment was given in the case brought by the Inspector of Awards against the Union Steamship Company, the question being as to the construction of clause 3 of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Award (Book of Awards, vol. VIII., p. 279), which provides for the payment of travelling time to workers engaged at Auckland to work cargo at other ports. The following statement, of facts was agreed on.by the parties: "A gang of waterside workers was engaged in Auckland by the respondent company to load cement at the port of Whangarei. The members of the gang left Auckland for Whangarei after 8 p.m. on Friday, December 27, 1907, by the company's steamer Poherua, and arrived at Whangarci a-bout daylight on the 23th. j The gang worked in various spells f ro-m 6.50 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. on December 28, 1907, and arrived back in .Auckland at about 1.30 a.m. on Sunday, December 29. For their work from 6.50 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. on Saturday, December 28, the members of the gang each received the sum of 14/6.. but received no other pay. The question was whether in these circumstances the workers, were entitled to any pay for trevelling time." "The object of clause 3," said his Honor, "*\s to compensate workers for time oeupied by ! them in travelling, which might otherI wise be spent by them in earning wages. [To give effect "to this object, the day referred to in the clause ought to be construed as meaning a working day as defined by the award; that is to say, a day which begins at 8 a.m. and ends at 5 p.m.. If a worker spends any part of such a day in travelling, he is entitled to be paid for travelling time in accordance with clause 3. If all his travelling is done outside those working hours, then he is not entitled to any payment for travelling time. In the present case the 'workers did all their travelling outside working hours, and they, therefore, are not entitled to any payment; for travelling time." WATERSIDE WORKERS' DISPUTE. The Bench delivered judgment in the case brought by the Inspector of Awards against C. H. Woods and others on an alleged breach of clause 11 of the Auckland Waterside Workers' awards (Book of Awards, vol. viii., p. 277), in that being members of a gang engaged and ordered down to work the e.s. Victoria at Auckland j;atj7 a.m. on June 29, 1908, they did fail and refuse to work, as prescribed by the .award. His Honor said that clause Jll of the award read as follows: "Where 'men are ordered down for work, andtone or more fails to appear or to. commence work, at the appointed time, the gang affected shall work short-handed until the substitute has 'been found.** It wa3 admitted that the facts in connec£ion with the matter were correctly set forth in the statement made by Mr. Cer-itty, I wharf manager to the Huddart-Parker Proprietary, Ltd. The question was whether the respondents had committed any breach of the award. "We. think," said his Honor, "that clause 11 of the award was not intended to impose amy obligation upon men to work. It was intended to enable an employer ,to proceed with the work wihen he has arranged for the proper number of men to do the work, and one or more of these fails to appear to commence work. Thus, under clause 14 of the award, not less than four men are to be engaged in ehovellkng coal, and not less ; than two men engaged at tip. If an employer engaged four men to do the work of shovelling, and only three of them appeared at the appointed hour, then under clause 11 the employer would be entitled to start 'the work with the three men, and continue with them until a substitute could be found for the missing man. The duty of a wharf labourer to commence work for an employer a-rises, not from anything contained in the award, but from the contract between the parties. If a worker accepts an engagement to assist in the work of discharging a particular ship, and theft refuses or neglects 'to start work at the appointed hour, that is a breach of contract, and not a breach of award, and the employer's remedy is an action for damages. In some cases tbe wrongful act may be a ibrea*h of award as well as a breach of contract. The present case is not one of these." COMPENSATION CASES. A DISPUTED ACCIDENT. Albert Tienen, a fireman, aged 57 years, appeared as claimant in a case against the Union Steamship Company for compensation. Mr McGregor, for Tienen, stated that the claim, which was for £300, was brought in respect of an accident, sustained on March 11, on board the s.s. Wanaka. The man was engaged in removing the clinker from the furnaces, when he was struck in the abdomen by the rod. After being treated on board, he signed off the vessel without making any complaint, being afraid that if it were to become understood that he was partly disabled, he would find it difficult to get re-employ-ment in the company. On subsequently applying to the company's official, he was told that he should have given notice before he left the service. On medical examination, it was found that his injurj* was very serious, and that his only relief could be through an operation. The claimant gave evidence in support of his case, stating that he had shown his injury to several of those on board, one of these advising him to see a doctor, whilst others considered it trifling Mr McVeagh, on behalf of the respondent company, held that no accident had fcappened, that the frilment did not arise out of the man's employment, and that no notice was given, as provided in the Act. i.e.. as soon as practicable after the accident occurred. The man had given no notice when leaving the vessel of his complaint, nor, when seen afterwards, by one or two officers, had he said anything about it. After a considerable amount of evidence had been called, the case was adipurned until this afternoon.