ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17222, 12 August 1921, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURGH SITTINGS. Tlio -Arbitration Court, presided oter - liy his Honour Mir Jxiatioa Fruzer, Willi him Mr W. Scott («mployM;B' repraiseiitatiw)* and • A. McCullougli (employees' continued ita. eittipg® 7©3t?i',^ay ; . • , BAKEBS' DISPTTTE.. . > ' The Canterbury. Optative Balers, . Pastrycooks, and Confectioners' X r nion, repre seats «d by Mr 11. IX M&rtin, applied for "ft Ss bonus duo to the workers to maet lie ittcresfwl <Jost of living-." Mr K. CoopMy on behatTof ih& employers, opposed the application. # . The Court reserved decision, Mr R. B. Martin, supported an application from tlio South Canterbury J3<ik«rs ipid Pastrycooks' Union for award. A partial reconißiendation was forwarded by the ConqiUatioji Council. The- main points in dispute on the Union's claims were:—Forty-four hour* a Week, and owrthn© for' more titan 8 hours' Trork on one day. : IfoTvinan •baker or pastrycook £$ f icrurneymttn baker or pastrycook £5 10s, bakers' labourer* £1 10s. There ehouM be nino holad*ya in tnp year, and an annual holiday of twelve working days on full pay .on completion of csch year of stxviot. Mr Martro said ihstfc bafcci'D did uot "J® regular Jiorae K» of workers, and he asked that bsjeera l>e tm«t«d ae lyell as tue skilled workarß in ether trades jn wsiwet of 'bours. Because of undesirable conditions it was row almost linpoaniblo to gst apprentices to tlio trade. i Pater Dunu, a "baker, gave ervideaoe as to tlie condition# of thn work. _ Tha- C'ouit rMfcrved 1 ita decision. COMPENSATION CASE.

"William Henry Cooke, cartel, Sydenham/ (Mr W. J. Hunto), claimed compensation from J..M. Heywood and Co. (Hi; X J. Cresson), on account at a lorry accident At 6u'rhner Inst year. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for sine 'weeks' full compensation np to August 18th, 192 J. amounting to £lB 9s. To this was -added £l3 18s, representing half the; digetence between plaintiff's estimated *arjiiugs if employed at light'-work and his .former earnings for. a • period of three months from August Mtli, {B2l, sad-a. further sum cf £6O as componaation for the permanent partial disability due lo the limitation of the movement of the left arm. Thee* sums amounted to £B3 2s. Plaintiff was allowed coats. JEWELLERS' AWARD. ' V The Canterbury Manufacturing Jewellers, "Watch and Clock Makers' Union, for which Mr.O. Renn *ppeared, applied for en industrial award from the Court. Tliere was a complete recommendation, from the Conciliation Court, and the only question at issue w«s when the award should come into force. Mr Reim- B»id that the Union desired that the awwid should he brought into force on Monday next. ' ' ~. .. Mr F. Cooper, who .appeared for toe employers, fiaid it was generally recognised, that an. awaid should he enforced within 14 days of the opening date of the sitting of the Court. , , .., The Court agreed that wi« award aucuid com© into force on Monday nest. CANTERBURY DRIVERS' AWARD. The Canterbury Motor-car, Eorse-drivera. and Livery Stable Employees' Union asked that the following parties bo added to tneir award :-Hondy Bros., J. Barclay, A. E. Lower, O. Marsh, T. McOiU, sen., Sefton Dairy Co., C Leversidge, v. O. Manning, The emplovera asked that the following clause be inserted in the recommendation from the ConcSiaition C<rurtcil:— "The hours of woik for drivers employed by creamery factories in lS oollecting cream from farmers eitaU bo B2 * week from Octoi*r Ist till March Ist, and 44 a week from Aprd Ist to September l«t. Stable time on attendance to- motor ttshklw :a excea»;of such hours shall be paid for as provided in clause 2. The Union's application was granted oy the Court, which reserved its decision on the matter of 4>ho new clause opphed for by the employers. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS. The shift engineers section of the Christchurch Amalgamated Society of Engineers asked that the Ashburton Borough Council ] be added to the exiting engineers' award. Mr Cooper' contended that as the em.- ; plovers were municipal officers thoy wore; exempt from the provisions of the award. The application was dismissed. APPLICATION TO ADD PARTIES. The Canterbury Hotel sod Restoirant Employees' Union ««ked that certain parties b» added to their award/ Objections were lodged by the following:— S Pempsey, J- Stack, A. Hobbs; W. Collins, 6. E. Boon, M. H*cdorß4d. «id M. &< The point discussed w» whether a marble bar should come under the terms of the award. , . . The Court reserved xts <lecia2oa. "GENERAL HANDS." W. Slaughter, Inspector of Awards, brought an action against W. J. Blake, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, Chriatehurcn, for an alleged breach of the Ideelscd Hotel Workers' Award, on the grounds that during the period from June 25th, 1931j to July ' 29th, he employed Albert Beaumont, classed i as a> general hand, for a portion of the time I each week as a barman, and failed to pay Beaumont the minimum amount of wage* provided for a barman.

JJr Slaughter 6aid that tho Labour Department was not after a, penalty, bat things had got to each a stag® now that an award could not bo properly administered uutil £her® was eomo definite interpretation from the Court as to what employees wero eral hands." • Sir Scott: Does it not depend a good deal on the engagement? Mr Slaughter: It iB a weekly engagement, but* the position should bo defined when the »rter .is engaged. ' i , His Honour: What you want'us to do is to make a -claueo defining, what a -general hand may not do. I take'it that both parties want an interpretation as to what is ■ a general hand. Mr P IJ,1 J , 3. Amodeo, who appeared for the defendant, said that, that was what the employers desired... They had approached tho feilsil some time ago, but tho TJnioii fie? clined to discuss the' question. ' Sir Slaughter said, that Beaumontt. had been paid £$ 10s a week Up t6 June-25th, and after that up to July 29th he had been paid -2 ..15b; p«sr week. It . was admitted that Be - had only been employed in "the bar for • 73 Houts out of tho 48 in a week, and oho night a week he w«a eng-aged-as a night \ porter. ' . Aft®r a lengthy discussion Mr Amodeo in- | tijnated that tho following tentative agree* '; meat had been arrived at between tho . licensed victuallers and the Union:—A gen- j eral hand may be engaged to relievo jjn the bar where only one bar hand is employed. Tho Court said it would givo an interpretation of "general hand." J Charges based on similar linos were brought against the Beresford Tea Boom? iflßsoadways), amd Beath and Co, 3lr 0. T. J, Alpers appeared for both defendant oomSmioß. He said tho question which the ourt was asked to answer was if a pantryjuaid was employed substantially during the week in the pantry or kitchen was she to lie classified as such, or m i waitress? There was not tho slightest suggestion that hia clients in any way wished to _ tako adTsuitapo of their employees; they only_ wished that tho pirls should fill- in idle time by doing small jobs. I Tho Court adjourned at 5 p.m. to resumo at 10 a.m. to-day.