STONE SURFACING.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 37, 13 February 1929, Page 3

STONE SURFACING.

MACHINES AT RAILWAY STATION. JUDGMENT FOR CONTRACTORS .APPEAL DISMISSED BY COUKT. Definition ~f a machine used on the new Auckland railway station for the surfacing of ->t<.ne was the subject of a judgment delivered in the Arbitration Court to-day by Mr. Justice Fra/er. The case h* an appeal from a judgment in the Magistrate's Court, where the Inspector of Awards (David Heughaiil proceeded against the Hans ford MiiiConstruction Co.. Ltd.. for an breach oi the Stoiieiiia.-ons and Monumental Masons Award. In the Magistrate's Conn t' u > in«ju'<--t.ir of awards contended the machine ii! was a haml-Mirfaeiii- u.ucli:iif of more than 1 Jin calibre, anil that thi; use of it at the new railway station building »■»* accordingly prohibited i>\ the award. The defence wa* that the appliance »a« a surfacing machine an<! not a hand-surfacing machine within the meaning of t h e award, and, accordin«ly. its U s o wai j«ormis?ible. -Mr. E. C. Cut ten. .s.M.. pave judpment la«t DeceinU-r that tiie machine, which had a calibre of Jin, Mnut a hand-surfacing machine. Question of Calibre. 'The oniy difference between the macliines i> that the surfacing machine iof a larger calibre and does more work in p. given time," said Mr. Justice Frazei in his judgment. Continuing!, the judpinent stated that machine'' was a trade term, and in the absence of anything j u the award to indicate that the term wato lie given a different meaniji-, the trade meaning aiurt l>e acce]>ted as ajijiiicable in the award. The award. moreover, used both terms, and must be interpreted as using them to refer t<. different machines. A hand-surfacing machine was. therefore, to be defined as one that was. except for the pneumaticpower transmission, operated ■ntirely l>y hand. In the case of the surfacing: machine, the weight of the machine and the repercussion were taken by a steel frame, and the operator had only to guide the machine by ha:id. To say that the term 'hand-surfacing machine"' included every class of chine in which the operator was required to use his hands to control the machine involved a confusion of thought. It wasignificant, too, that when the recommendations for the present award were beiig framed by the Conciliation Council, only two types of surfacing machines were in use in the district—machinethat were indisputably hand-surfacing machines. There was evidence that complaints had been made regarding the u-e of machines of the cla»s of over. Min calibre, but there was no suggestion" of complaints having been made regarding the use of larger calibre machines of the latter class.

I Vibration and Dust. I If the vibration and the dust caused jby the use. of surfacing machines of larpe calibre necessitated the inclusion in the award of special provisions rej:utheir use. the matter <-t.uld he considered, said his Honor, "when a new award was heinp made. It was desirable that employers who used such machines should take all necessary steps to make the conditions of work as free as passible from discomfort or danger to the men operating the machines. > In the opinion of the majority of the Court, the machines in question in tin- ' case were not "haiid-surfacinji ma chines." and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Mr. Montietli dissented from the opin,i ion of the Court. He said he could not see that the placing of the powered tool in a frame which was operated by hand. I made it more than a iiaud-surfaciii'-machine.