NOT MADE PARTY TO AWARD

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22004, 30 January 1937, Page 9

NOT MADE PARTY TO AWARD

SUGGESTION THAT ARBITRATION COURT WAS MISLED

An allegation that the Arbitration •Court had been misled .in a case in which Mrs H. Freeman-Greene, carrying on business as Madame Henrietta, opposed being made a party to -he North Canterbury female hairdressers’ award was made in the Magistrate s Court, before Mr F. F. Reid, StM., yesterday by Mr H. A. Gatward, in bringing proceedings on behalf of the Labour Department. The department s claims were that the defendant, Mrs Freeman-Greene, as being a party to the award, had dismissed an apprentice, E. Seed, without finding another employer willing to undertake the duties of teaching her the trade, and had also accepted a premium for apprenticeship. Mr R. A. Young, for the defendant, said that she was not a party to the' award, as an application for her inclusion had been refused by the Arbitration Court. She actually carried on work as a tutor in hairdressing. Mr Gatward said that the statement that the defendant was not engaged in competition but was conducting a school was contrary to fact. The apprentice worked on clients and money was paid. Defendant automatically became party to the award. The magistrate: But she was not included in the award by the Arbitration Court.

Mr Gatward: I submit that the Arbitration Court was deliberately misled. The defendant misled his Honour in saying that she did not charge except for such items as sachets.

After a short adjournment, the magistrate non-suited the department. “You suggest that the defendant was bound as a subsequent party to the award,” he said to Mr Gatward. “But an ’ application was made to the Arbitration Court to have her joined to the award and the court declined to do so. This refusal, however obtained, is binding on me.‘ Unless you can prove that conditions have altered since then, I do not see how you can succeed.”