ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 251, 21 October 1921, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

HAIRDRESSERS' HAU HOLIDAT SATURDAY SELECTED. The Arbitration Court has fixed Saturday afternoon, from 1 o'clock, as the weekly half-holiday for the Auckland hairdressers. A forty-eight hour week has been awarded, exclusive of meal hours, to be worked between 8 a.m. and v p.m. from Monday to Thursday (inclusive) between 8 a.m. and !) p.m. on Fridays, and 1 p.m. on Saturdays. On the days on which employees cease work at C p-m. the shops are to close at 7 p.m. The minimum wage for journeymen or journcywomeii hairdressers is £4 5/, plus 10/ bonus. WORKING ON A BEEHIVE. Decision was reserved in a claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a factory at Mount Kden on Good Friday, March 25. The plaintiff was Thomas H. Bentley, machinist (Mr. Gallagher), who sought compensation from Robert Stevenson, stairs manufacturer (Mr. Paterson). It was stated that the plaintiff, who was 18 years old, was engaged in buzzplaning a roof for a beehive, when the plane struck a knot in the timber, and caused his left hand to slip into the knives. The little finger was severed and the palm was cut and the other fingers injured. The defendant had paid £2 per week compensation, but denied liability in respect of permanent injury. The chief point was whether the plaintiff was acting in accordance with the terms of his employment In working on Good Friday. He declared he had been given permission to work that day, but this was denied by the defendant. AN APPLICATION FAILS. A contention that the application of the principles of the horse drivers' award would be out of place when brought into operation in small townships was made on behalf of certain Coromandel employers, who opposed an application by the union to have them added to the Auckland district award. It was stated that the employees had joined the union. After hearing evidence, his Honor said there was clearly no reason why the Coromandel drivers' employers should be joined as parties to the award, and the Court's decision was given accordingly. "WHAT WOULD THE PUBLIC THINK?"' "I wonder what sort of an impression would be given if it was put before the public," remarked his Honor, after listening to a strong aspeech hy Mr. Andy O'Neil. who appeared for the union in an application for an interpretation of the ironworkers' labourers' award. The point at issue was that no provision could be made in any award at present for a limited number of chain-gans; men employed by the Union Steamship Company, but the Company had given an undertaking at the last Court sitting that the men when doing iron workers' labourers' work or any odd jobs not coming under the award would be treated as coming under award conditions. Mr. O'Neil alleged that the Company had not kept its promise, and he declared he would not accept its word. He had no faith in its promises. Mr. W. Scott: You are not in a very conciliatory humour. Mr. O'Neil: I am capable of telling the truth sometimes, and to tell the truth sometimes is better than not to tell it at all. His Honor: It shows a sign of regeneration. (Laughter.) . After evidence the judge said that apparently the Company had abided by the understanding reached in Court. Tt was only a verbal obligation, and the only alternative was to try and get a general labourers' award in Auckland. Mr. O'Neil: There is not a sufficient ' number of men. His Honor: Then why not add a little faith to your other virtues? Mr. O'Neil said that lately matters had not been running smoothly. His Honor: The foreman's duty is to see fair play between the men and tho Company, and he haa given evidence that when any question as to payment for dirty work arose he generally gave the. man the benefit. Mr. O'Neil: No, it is the duty of the foreman on the works to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the workers. His Honor: I wonder what sort of an impression would be given if it was put; before the public. Mr. O'Neil: It won't he before the| public. After further argument the Court re-; served its decision. SUGAR WORKERS' AWARD. The Court has decided upon two alterations in the sugar workers' award on the application of the Company. The first alteration is the substitution of the following for sub-clause (d) of clause 1: "Four washhouse workers may be required to commence work at 6.30 a.m., provided the daily number of hours is not exceeded, and provided further that no worker who resides on the south side of the Waitemata Harbour should be required to commence work before the usual hour." The second alteration, which it is stated in a memorandum was necessitated by some confusion between the Company's classification, which was adopted, and a schedule of wages in which there was an error on the part of the Company's agent, reduces the wages of lighter dischargers and deck hands by 5/ per week, making their pay £4.