INDUSTRIAL CASES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 153, 29 June 1911, Page 2

INDUSTRIAL CASES.

j Several alleged breaches of the Arbitration"" Act were dealt with by (Mr. C; C. ■ Kettle, S.M., to-day. | NO WAGES BOOK!. I . H. Bainbridge was charged with having j committed a breach of the Auckland ; grocers' award; bj- failing to" keep an overtime book, and also not paying a man overtime. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was lined £5 in each case. - QUESTION OF OVERTIME. Tire Takapuna Tram and Ferry Company were charged with having commiti ted a breach of an award in not paying certain, overtime. •Air: J-. W: Goans appeared—for the Depnruticnt. -Mr. Brown (who appeared for the defHndniit company) said lie.did not dispute the facts, -but- he wislied to ' explain - that the matter was one of arrangement .between, the manager .of. the company and the men themselves, for their mutual benefit... Tbe manager did not realise be Wa.sjpomniiili'.'g a breach of award. The meni-started work at (i a.m. now, whereas if they had to get up steam it would mean beginning about 4 a.m. Being saved those two-hours-the men were content to put in tire extra time without overtime pay. John, I). Douglas, manager of the com:. pany, confirmed Mr. Brown's statement that the hours worked were by mutual • arrangement. lie wasThot aware he was [breaking the award. It was better for the men, and he had no complaints from them. '" In answer to the inspector, Mr. Douglas

>aid lie got a copy ■''' tho award before ;bcy started '.ml another from .he secretary of tile — rr.—^my-overtime Sailed in question won't.i ! ;,- paid the next iveek. Dennis Talbot, engineer employed by :he defendant -eomjjiiny,- -deposed that ,vlien employed, another driver and himI self agreed to the compromise. He considered it affair one, and as mueh-to the advantage of himself as to that of the company, lie would be sorry to revert to the old system. Previously, on an engine, he worked 12 hours a. day for 10/. ■ Now he was making about £4 7/6 per wuek. Mr. Krttle said it seemed a pity, where both' sides wert , agi-eedj that power was not given to vary the award in minor points for mutual benefit. ilr. Goan said the Arbitration Court would- not-a-g-i:ee- to such a course.. These matters should be settled when the awards were made. Sir. Cain (secretary to the union) said it was 'a-'-ycry so.ro point with enginedrivers that they were not paid for getting, up steam. Frederick W. Druhimond, engine driver for defendant, who was called by the Inspector, said he was driving on the 3t.eal.ii'' engine tramway for about six I'eais previously. When he was engaged ie gave Mr. Douglas a copy of the" iward.- -Roughly speaking, he worked >7 hours a week. He never arranged -vrtli Jiff. Douglas to have time deducted n'-lieu of--nob having to get up steam. rhe-tHTangement suited him better tiian :he other way. It' ihoant 'lie liad not :o go to work so early. He did comilain once, that the nay was short, aa mder the award tile Hours were 48: per y«ek; 'Ho-got £3 a week for 57 hours. \i fireman-should get steam up, but the engine-driver- would be- on, duty at the saifie ti.ne. . . •• ■•-■ ■■ • ■ iMr.'.'Gohiis- argued this -\vas a deliberate t. breach of the'la.%va,rd. It. was not a case.to.be treated as a trivial one. .Kettle said a week's work was 4S-Hours... ex elusive of time for getting up steam. It was part of these men'si duty."to";get up" steam. Tliat meaiit an hour to..two lio.urs to* get up steam. These men preferred to throw that time into their engine driving, steam to Tie got up by: the-man in charge of the shed. That was suitable tn both, but it was contrary to the award. It was an hon est bonaj-ficle mutual arrangement, but employers or workmen could not avnend an"award.' : ' The breadi was one that had iiot-riniur-ed anybody/. He imposed a' nominal penalty of 5/.