ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12860, 19 July 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

a — Tbe Arbitration Court resumed at lOa.m.yosterday. Hia Honour Mr Justice isim presided, and Mr It. Mater vworkers' representative) and Mr is. Brown (employers' representative) were with him on "tho Bench. LESS THAN THE AWARD WAGE. The inspector of Award* applied for enforcement of the tanners' award in the ease ot Baker and Co., who admitted having paid less than Is an hour to certain employee* under tweiitv-one years of age. A hue of £3 with costs, waa imposed GENERAL LABOURERS. In tho General Labourers Union v. .Mooro Broaieis. Mr A. Paterson, Provident ot the Union, appeared for the applicants, and -Mr J. A. Flesher lor tne respondents. Mr Paterson said that the respondents were largo contractors and employed a large number of men on a drainage contract, and botweea January Ist aud March 12th, were paying for overtime at tho ordinary rata of ls an hour, instead of 16 3d. George Lyons, labourer, admitted in tho witne-sc--box that ho had told Mr Paterson that he only received (3d for half an hour's work on one occasion, but afterwards on reckoning it up, he found he had received 7Jd. Benjamin Moore, of the respondent firm, prodncod books and pay-sheets, and -wi-3 examined in detail in regard to the pay of Lyon*. The caoo was dismissed, and five cases against the employees wero withdrawn. A OOACHBUILDER'S HELPERS. W. T. Cronin admitted the inspector's complaint that he had been employing an apprentice without indenturing him, thus violating tho ooaohbuildere' award. Ho eaid it was an oversight. Inspector Hagger stated tliat respondent had had a youth two years _ his shop without indenturing him. Tho resjiondont was further charged with having two boy helpers in tho paint chop, whereas the award only permitted ono. The respondent had claimed that one of thorn was on probation for apprenticeship, but the inspector read a letter from the lad's father, Baying that ho understood he was doing general labourer's work, and he did not desiro to apprentice him. Frank Cusack said he was employed as a labourer. He understood that his companion, Kerr, was on probation for apprenticeship. William Kerr, aged 15, said he had worked at respondent's shop for a year. He was not indentured, and his fathor had never told him that he was to be an apprentice Tlie respondent was fined £5 for having an unindentured apprentice, and £*2 for having an extra helper, and was ordered to pay the fees. PREFERENCE. J. Porter was proceeded against by Inspector Hagger for a breach of the stonemasons' award in not giving preference. The inspector gave particulars regarding four men whose names were on the employment-book on two dates when respondent engaged other men. Respondent said he -wanted Bret-class men as blue-stone cutters. He did not tako one of the~mon, because tho man had refused to come to him once before. Another was a stranger to him, and he preferred to have a man ho knew. Another was not capable of earning tho wages at blue_tono cut. tine. One of the men he was alleged to have engaged on December sth had been working for him continuously until three weeks before, when he had no work for him to do. The job for which he engaged the men was a special one, and he could not afford to try men he did not know. The President said respondent did not appear to havo taken any notico of the award. Ho did not consult t'.io employment-book, and his excuses for not employing men whom he knew to be available wero unsatisfactory. A fine of £3 was imposed, and respondent ordered to pay oosts. ENGAGED FOR THE JOB. Edmonds and Page were proceeded against by tlio Canterbury Timber Yards Workers' Union for discharging a man without notice. Mr Cliajloa Page eaid the man was only employed for a single job of stacking timber, and was to leave when it was done. As the man was ill and unable to be in Court, Mr Page and Mr J. Thorn Vfor the Union) wont to sco him. On returning, they stated that he had told them he understood he was engaged for the job. The case was then withdrawn, the/ Judge expressing hi__ opinion that the union was justified in bringing the case.

PPREaSEBS AT THE KAIAPOI FACTORY.

The Inspector of Awards claimed that tlio Kaiapoi Woollen Company had been paying wages below the award rate to a male pieseer, thua violating tlio tuiloressea award. Mr T. G. Ruesell uppeared for tho respondent company. Inspector Hagger eaid that clause 13 ot tho award defined the wages of piasisers, and 12 provided that pressors should be drawn, where possible, from tlio beam openers, end should be on probation for six months. It followed that at tho expiration of the six months tho employee should receive the wages of .a pre&ser. Thomas Tremberth was examined as to the periods when he worked as » pressor, and as v scam-opener. Mr .Russell, for the respondents, contended that whero the parties to an award had lawfully made a contract, not inconsistent with tho award, 6uch contract would hold good, notwithstanding an alteration in the award. It had been the custom at the factory for twenty years for employees learning pressing to bo drawn from the seamopenere, and to servo what was virtually an apprenticeship of two years at tho pressing. William -Mingy, manager of tho factory, said it had been an established custom in the factory for prossers to qualify from tho ranks of the seampressers, and to servo two years in the press room before being regarded and paid as fully qualified. Tremberth entered tho press room in this way in July, 1900. Thero was no special arrangement with him, but the custom of the factory was understood on both sides. Pressing waa .» B killed occupation. * Thoophilus Wilson, formerly manager of tho factory, gave evidence confirming tho allegations as to the custom in employing p res-sere. James Berry-man, pressor, gave similar evidence. Mr Russell stated that the arra_t_i_rement with Tremberth wae made under the award of 1902. Tho present proceedings wero taken under the award of December 21st. 1905, but that had been superseded by an agreement of this year ("Journal of the Labour Department" for April, 1907). This agreement knocked out the six month/, probation, and restored the two years' apprenticeship. Counsel admitted that there was no forma] agreement in the matter, but thought the Court should recognise the practice of the factory. It would havo boon a dishonourable action on the put. of the company to havo made Tremberth 6tart again on the term of probation. Inspector Hagger contend.- that the oon'litions of twonty years ago did not affect the case. There was no proof of a contract between the company and Jremberth, and even if there were such a contract, the award would override it, because there was no reference in the award to existing contracts. The company was at liberty to discharge Tremberth when tne award came into force. Under the award Tremberth was entitled to receive £2 10s per week. Tho Judge said that the Court, after

considering tho matter during the j luncheon adjournment, had concluded i that under tho nword of 1903 the com- i pany was not justified in continuing the arrangemont previously in force. Tlie award was intended to supereode existing practices. If there had been a binding agreement between the p-ir-tic_, the case might havo been different, but it was quite clear that thore was no such agreement. It was open to the company to discharge Trombertli at auv time subsequent to the award, and it was likewise open to him to leave their employ. It was not a case for a heavy penalty. Tho respondent firm would be tinea £2 and costs. LEARNING HAIKDRESSING. Inspector Hanger brought a ay. against R. N. Orerend, hairdromer for paying l«9s than tho minimum award wago of £2 10s a week. .»lr Hunt appeared for th© respondent. The facts, which wero not disputed, wero that roflponcient had a young man named Williams, who was a cripple working in his shop from 6 to 8 p.m., and longer on Saturdays, amd paid him 2s Cd a week. Mr Hunt said Williams was piekinp up the trad, in the evoniinps after hia regular work, and the 2n (kl was not regarded as a regular weekly wage. It was a casual and oocasiona. payment Tlie Court recorded a breach without penalty, and the case against William.waa similarly disposed of. ( COMPENSATION CASES. Eighteen olaims for compensation for accidents wero set down for hearing j-esterday, but owing to the length nf the enforcements list, they hud to bo adjourned. The list was gone through yesterday morning, ami nine weir struck out a*'settled. Of" the others, one was fixed for the next sitting of the Court, which will take pine© after a visit to Timaru, nnd the others were fixed for definite dates from August 6th to August 12th. Hi© Court will sit at 10 a.m. to-day.