SHEARERS' AWARD.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17294, 4 November 1921, Page 8

SHEARERS' AWARD.

SECRETAEY FINED FOB BKEAOH. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TKLXORAM.) WELLINGTON, November 3. A case of unusual interest was heard before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M!, to-day, in which Rowland T. Bailey, Inspector of Awards, applied for a penalty of £IOO to be imposed on Charles Grayndler, secretary of tho Wellington Shearers' Union, in,respect of a breach of the Wellington district shearers' and shed hands' award. The aplicpat6ion sought the enforcement of the provisions of the award, which stated that neither the union nor any member should do anything either directly or indirectly to prevent a person or induce a person to abstain from working under the conditions of the award. The Court of Arbitration, in its preamble, stated Mr Bai.ey, provided mat any breach of the provisions set oatin the schedule constituted a breach of the award, and 'that the maximum penalty could be imposed of £IOO. Mr I*. J. O'Regan, who appeared for defendant, admitted a breach of the award, but disputed the jurisdiction of the Court to impose a penalty exceeding £G. The Court had been deprived by an amendment of the Act of the power to inflict such a fine. Tho law provided that the union, association, or employee was liable to a fine of £IGO lor a breach of award, but an individual worker was liable to a penaltv not exceeding £6. Mr Bailey said he relied simply on the fact of the £IOO provision contained in the award, and that anything the Arbitration Court did could not be questioned. His Worship remarked that it was a deliberate breach of an award. Defendant made arrangements to prevent men going to work, and it was fortunate for iiim that the penalty was no light. "If I had my way, I would fine him more severely, remarked Mr Hunt. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5 and witnesses' fees amounting to £l2.