PROSECUTIONS FOR ALLEGED BREACHES. Mr. C. C.Kettle to-day held a special •essiop. in the Magistrate's Court for the : purpose of dealing with cases arising out j if alleged breaches of the Arbitration , awards. Mr. Hood, Inspector of Awards, « acted as proatculo:. t CARPENTER OR LABOURER? \ Messrs. R. 0. Clark and Co. were proceeded against for paying less than the 11 award rates to two carpenters, Tom i ■ N'ichnll and James Stewart. Mr. Hood; <' stated that on January IS he found six = men at work on a building at the de- j fendanfs pipe works, at Hobsonville. j • Of these six Nicholl and Stewart were ; \ being paid 7/6 instead of 10/8 per day. j James Stewart, in the witness box, [ though, at the time in ques-1 tion. he was engaged as a labourer, and assisted the carpenters generally. He did some sawing and hammering-in nails. Mr. Hood: I would ask your Worship to make a note of that. It is essentially carpenter's work. Mr. Kettle: Oh! T don't know. A man might hammer nails into the wall to hang pictures on and not be a carpenter. (Laughter.) Mr. Prendergast, for the defendant ! company, submitted that the latter were not parties to the award, aad were not bound by it. The company manufactured pipes, and were not engaged in the industry to which the award related. They simply made their own sheds, and ear- \ ried out their own repairs. It was fur- i ther contended that eien if the defen ' dants were bound by the award Stewart . was employed only as a labourer on. January 13. though he had since been j put on as a carpenter. I R. (lark, manajinij director of the l firm, affintved that Stewart was originally •' engaged as a labourer. At the time the , witness was not aware that he was a car- I penter. Xicboll was engaged also as a , general labourer. Mr. Prendergast: Pid you know the latter was a carpenter when you engaged him ?—No. and I dispute it now. Th« witness added that though the firm wpre. not bound by the award they often paid j more than award rates. They did no carpentering work ouuide their own repairs. Tom Clark also gave evidence for the defence. He denied that he had told Mr. Hood that Stewart and Nichol were carpenters. Mr. Hood contended that, the defendants had become subsequent parties to the award under section 00, sub-section 3 of the Act. Mr. Kettle: Why doesn't your Department employ counsel to argue these legal points? The inspector further argued that tho fact that the defendant firm did any carpenteriiig at all made them partakers in the industry. j Mr. Kettle: Do yon mean to say that !if I put up a fowlhouse 1 should corns under the award for the time being?— Yes. The Magistrate reserved his decision till to-morrow. p*>nditi!* the production of certain legal authorities by Mr. Hood. James Stewart was also prosecuted. He denied working for a rertain period at lid instead of 1/4 per hour. He admitted the evidence in the previous case, ant 5 that he was. bound by the award. Judgment was deferred till next day. ENGINEERING FIRM FIXED. Mr. Shnnaghan. Inspector of Factories, proceeded against Gibbons and Harris, electrical pnginecrs. for taking a boy on as apprentice and failing to give notice of apprenticeship. Mr. Hood appeared to prosecute. It wa> r-tated that a lad named Charles RatWiff was employed by the defendants. After eight month*. ] however, he left. The defendants adJ mitted a technical brencn of the Act. ' : The man in charge of the boiler-making department. Cliff by name, had employed : the lad. Nine months later there was slackness in this department, and the ; youth left of his own accord. A fine of 20/- was imposed. A CASE ADJOURNED. Mr. Mays, representing the Inspector of Factories, prosecuted Gardner Bros, and Parker for a breach of the brick layers' award. The matter was adjourned to enable the facts to be stated ie vrriting. PRINTER PROSECUTED.
William Albert Wilkinson, printer was summoned tor an alleged breach ol the award in respect of an employe* mimed W. Schultz. Mr. Mays prnsecutei on behalf of Mr. bhamighan and Mr Grosveuor defended. The case for the' prosecution was thai Sehultz was employed as a cutter am bookbinder at SO/- and .">.">/- a week, in stead uf £- 10/ —the minimum requirec !,..■ th- award. ■ S.h,i!;v %i\iiri> tiiat he had been en gaged last Augu-it as :i uir.fier and ruttpr and while lie was with the firm did hal the cutting in the establishment. How ever, he rnly received folders" wages. An advertising agent named Dines sail tl.at during a p»riod of a month or mor he had been on the defendant's premise practically every day. and had see Schultz engaged in cutting Fluet Wee programme^. The defendant stated that Sehiiltz wn engaged as a folder, and had folded th Fleet Week programmes, fuit had not en I them. He al-o did r.,ugh binding. H was not a union member when lirst h joined the firm, but became one lateHe was dismissed for throwing a hear bookbinder's hammer at another ma: The defendant's foreman iWhaley denied that Sehultz did any cutting. B had been ordered not to. The Magistrate said he had no reaso to doubt the sworn statements of tl defendant and his foreman. On the cv dence the ease must be dismissed. (Proceeding.)
Permanent link to this item
ARBITRATION AWARDS., Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 83, 7 April 1909
ARBITRATION AWARDS. Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 83, 7 April 1909
Using This Item
Fairfax Media is the copyright owner for the Auckland Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Fairfax Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.