ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 218, 13 September 1924, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

• ~ • ' ! SEAMAN'S AWARD. ' WHAT IS A BOY? t - APPEAL AGAINST MAGISTRATE'S 1 FINDING. An appeal against the decision of Mr. \' E. C. Cutcea, S.M., given in the Magis- \ trate's Court in June last in a case in s which the Auckland local Federated 1 Seamen's Industrial Union applied for . a penalty of £10 against the bmon ■ S.S. Company, contending that the ' company had commited a breach ot i section "30, clause A, of the award m . putting a boy named Wilkinson on i night watch on the s.s. Arahura on the , night of December 23-24, was before the i Arbitration Court this morning. « • chine judgment for the defendant companyf With COStS £2 2/, the Magistrate • said" that there was no principle involved, and he couid not imagine why the proceedings were taken. It was 1 against this judgment that the union ' appealed on the grounds that 1 the magistrate was wrong in 1 finding that Wilkinson was promoted to 1 ordinary seaman on December 23, and 1 also in finding that Wilkinson was not 1 a b °y- .j j, -ft, Mr Justice Frazer presided, witn ■ him being Messrs. W. Scott and H. 1 Hunter, assessors, while Mr. Holmden '■ appeared for the appellant and Mr. -K. 1 McVeagh for the respondent. . ; In support of the appeal Mr. Holmden | i said that the union took exception to • • the remarks of the Magistrate that no | ■ principle was involved. It frequently- ' happened that seamen fell off ships or , ■ wharves, and boys should not be put ion duty at gangways. According to the ship's articles Wilkinsons dis-, charge showed that he was not pro- ' moted to the rank of ordinary seamen till December 24, and for the four hours j i on which he was on duty on the night | i of December 23 he was only paid wa"es although he received overtime. I I Counsel submitted that on the night lof December 23 Wilkinson was a boy ' in the terms of the Arbitration Court award, and, therefore, a breach had been committed, and the Magistrate's finding was wrong. The official log would settle the matter, but it had not been produced. I For the respondents Mr. McVeagh said that the whole question was whether on the night of December 23, 'when Wilkinson was at the gangway, he was a boy within the meaning of the Arbitration Court award, and not the Shipping and Seamen's Act. Clause 39a of the award did not apply to persons under 17 years of age, and prohibits a boy under 17 years from being on duty at gangways. Wilkinson was IS year 3of age, and was, therefore not a boy as defined. Counsel also submitted that the evidence showed | that Wilkinson was told while at GisI borne on the way to Auckland that he would be promoted to ordinary seaman, and be submitted this was done, and in proof of this Wilkinson's pay had been increased. The Magistrate's finding had I also been based on fact, and counsel submitted that the Court could not disturb a finding on fact. I The Court reserved its decision.