SITTINGS IN CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14055, 29 May 1911, Page 5

SITTINGS IN CHRISTCHURCH.

The Arbitration Court sat in the Provincial Council Chambers on Friday. His Honour Mr Justice Sim prosided. LIGHTFOOT v. NISBET.' In tho caso of Lightfoot, Inspector of Awards. South Canterbury, v. Nisbet, Ltd., (Timaru), the question for the Court to decide was the value of the plumbing certificate issued to a plumber named Millen by tho Timaru Technical School. Mr C. A. Stringer appeared for defendant. The Inspector claimed £1 for breach of the award, in that defendant refused to nay Millen ls 5d per hour because he did not have a City and Guilds of London Institute certificate. After hearing evidence, his Honour announced that the Court would take timo to consider the matter. CANTERBURY FREEZING WORKS EMPLOYEES v EMPLOYERS. Tho Canterbury Freezing Works' employees applied to havo the following employers added to the Award: — Tho Canterbury By-Products Co., N. Clc-gg, William Downer, N.Z. Farmers' Co-operative Association, and Nelson Bros. (Hornby). The Court reserved its decision. NEW ZEALAND FEDERATED TAILORESSES. Tho N.Z. Federated Tailoresscs' Union (Hon. J. T. Paul, M.L.C.) applied for the New Zealand award to bo put into force. Mr P. Hercus (Kaiapoi Woollen Co.) appeared for tho Kaiapoi Woollen Co., Ballantyne and Co.. the Canterbury Clothing Co., Crown Clothing Co., Grummitt, White and Co.. and the Potone Woollen Co. Mr' Horcns said the award contained a clause stating* that Schedule , B should not be put into force without an order of thc Court. This part of the industry, the making of ladies' garments of fashion, was "totally different from the rest of the industry. If the parties -were to be put •under an award of th% Court, they wolild haVo to" "look to.rlhe .Government for a- snl>Rt , '»>+.n] ."Hef *■+'•*•*■■»' in the. duty on imported goods. Tho employers wero not sure that the industry in question was worth continuing if the restrictions proposed were placed on it. The Hon. J. T. Paul said there ■* was practically no difference between this branch and the rest of the industry. The other branches wero also subject to competition from chew gord*- dum-ned into New Zealand from England. As regards tho scarcity of female labour women could be employed even though they had not been through an apprenticeship, provided the employers paid them the minimum wa£e. His Honour said that the Court would have to hear the parties cited in other centres of the Dominion, nnd the matter would stand over until after the sitting in Wellington. Dunedin had already been heard. CANTERBURY ENGINEERS' AWARD. An application to add the Midland Engineering Company and H*. Moss and Co. to the engineers' award was granted. - BUTCHERS' AWARD. F. Cooper, on behalf of the employers, applied for an interpretation of the butchers' employees' award. Pie wished the Court to state whether the award was still in operation in the city. If it was, a week's work amounted to 56 hours, and if it was not, then the Shops and Offices Act applied, and the week would consist of 52 hours. His Honour s*>id an application coivd not ho made in this way. Tho applicant's best course was to commit a ibreach of the award, and challenge the Inspector of Awards to take proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR AWARDS. Industrial agreements arrived at bofore the Conciliation Council will bo mado awards in tho following trades:—Canterbury Saddlers, United Millers and Engino Drjvers, United

Boilermakers, Canterbury Tanners, and Canterbury Bacon Workers.

F. C. Ellis, on behalf of tho Engine Drivers, opposed the application to mako an award of the agreement between the United Millers and Engiuo Drivers and the Flourmillers, on tho ground that tho agreement arranged for lid an hour less than the engine drivers had been awarded somo years ago in a separate award. RITCHIE v. McLACHLAN. James Ritchie (Mr Nicholls) claimed from John McLachlan. of Waikari (Mr E. T. Harper), a lump sum as compensation for an accident sustained last December, while working in defendant's timber mill. Defendant had paid £12 10s up to tho present, and claimant's wages at the time of the accident averaged £2 10s a week. After evidence had been given by claimant. Dr. Jennings. Dr. Simpson, Dr. O'Brien, and Dr. Orchard the case was adjourned till next siHing, on tho understanding that defendant paid ur> the arrears, that claimant put himself in the hands of a doctor at defendant's expense for two months, and that defendant continued his payments of half wages to claimant for the same period. DISPOSING OF COMPENSATION. Mabel Louisa Jones (Mr C. W. Purnell) asked for an order as to how £507 19s 6d, compensation paid by the Canterbury Frozen -Meat Company (Mr Izard) to her as the -widow of Walter Edward Jones, should be dealt with. She asked that the money be given wholly to her with which to buy a house for tho benefit of herself and her children. Mr Purnell was instructed by the Court to submit a scheme for distributing the money. BICYCLE ACCIDENT. Francis John Sim (Mr "Wilding) claimed £250 from Booth, Maedonald and Co., Ltd. (Mr Alpers), as compensation for injuries sustained while in defendant's employ. Sim alleged that while proceeding on a motor bicycle on November 7th to Seadown to complete the erection of a windmill for defendants, he was run into and thrown off his machine, with the result that his left leg was fractured. Tho defendants denied that the accident arose out of claimant's employment. Judgment was given T>y consent for £27 for eightee)x weeks, and thereafter at the rate of ]d per week, with costs. £7 7s. The defendant company did not actually dispute the claim, but opposed it because the Accident Insurance Company repudiated the liability on the ground that tho accident did not arise out of the man's employment.