CARPENTERS' AWARD.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17273, 11 October 1921, Page 4

CARPENTERS' AWARD.

A TEST CASE,

A teat case of importance to builders End contractors was decided at the magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.

J. Georgeson, Inspector of A\vard3, proceeded against Herbert Pearce, builder (Mr J. R. Cuninghain) for an alleged breach of Clause 3 (c) of the. Xorth, Canterbury Carpenters' and Joiners' award, which requires 3d an hour extra to be- paid to all workers employed in repairs to buildings or fittings destroyed or damaged by fire.

Mr Georgeson said that the defendant was a Cnristfiburcix builder, and was a party to the awara. The claim nrose Irom ihe employment of journeymen carpenters on J. M. Heyvvood mid Co.'s building in Manchester stitet, which was practically destroyed by fire ou June 4th last. Defendant was given the contract of repairing and reinstating the interior of the building. Ha had reformed vh« question to the. Con tractors' and Builders' Association as to whether ho should pay the extra 3d per hour, and had apparently been adviaed'tuat he should not pay the extra rate. The present action was in the nature of a test case because the clause providing for the extra payment was embodied in awards in various industrial districts throughout the Dominion. There' web a, considarablo element of danger in Heywood's job, as although the outer walls were to a great degree intact, tie fierce fire had made the brickwork loose inside. In addition to this.the men had to put up 4 with dirt and dust from the blackened walls and partitions. Edward James G. .Stringer, Inspector of Scaffolding, said the building had been gutted by fire, and there was a considerable amount of burnt material about. The work being done could not be clawed as new building work. There T ( as always a danger in repairing burnt buildings. Ernest Charles Sutcliffe, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, said that on receiving the minimum wage on pay-night some of the men called [ on witness and lodged a complaint. He ad- | vised the men to continue work until the matter could be adjusted. There was considerably more danger in working in a building like Heywood's than there would be in erecting a new building. He explained iu detail how tho risks were greater. / William Fry, journeyman carpenter, employed by Mr Pearce on Heywood's building, said the job could be described as replacement work. Considering that it woe a job of replacing after a fire it was not so very ditty, ,but it was not as clean as making l a new building. From August sth to 23rd he did not receive any extra pay. The award rate wae 185.6 d for an eight-hour day. There was a, good deal of dirt a'ad dust encountered, and it was more dangerous working _ in a burnt-out building than in a new building. The debris had been cleaned up, except for one or two doors, before the carpenters went on.

Evidence o£ a similar nature m gii'en by Robett Woods. Mr Cuningham. said this was really a test case for a ruling on Clause 3 of the award, as to what was reoair work in. tho case of «. building damaged by fire. Mr Pearce did not want to deprive the -workmen of one penny. He merely represented the Builders' Association, which desired to see that justice ■was done to all' parties. Sixteen labo-uier« had been employed to clean up the debris before the carpenters were put on to work. All of the old material remaining after the fira had been cleared away. The question before the Court was, was the work repairing or replacing, or was it rebuilding? Herbert Pearce, defendant, contractor for the rebuilding of Heywood's premises, said that the- whole of the building had been gutted except the ground floor. There was no danger of the walls or floors collapsing. No old material had been -used. Before the men went on to. the work the City Surveyor inspected the place with witness, and he expressed himself aa satisfied with it so far as safety was concerned. Joseph K. Adams, foreman carpenter for defendaht, said it was a new job, not' n. repairing one. It was no dirtier than erecting a new building-. The building was braced with rolled steel, and there was no danger of any part collapsing. The Magistrate said that this case depended on the interpretation of sub-clauae C of Clause E of the North Canterbury Carpenters' and Joiners' award. .This clause provided that workers engaged on the demolition of a building- or repairs to a building damaged by fire shall bo paid 3d an hour extra. Heywood's building had been -practically gutted by fire* only the walla being left, and tbo question m«: Was it re-pair work or was it new work? In bia opinion the work bain? done was repairing, because it was replacing the building in tho same condition as it was before tho fire, and so. according/to tho words of the clause, tho workers were entitled to be paid Ed per hour extra.

The defendant said he would pay the extra money to the workeTs; making it retrospective.