IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 201, 19 May 1908, Page 6

IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

SICK MEN'S SUBSTITUTES.' (BY TELfiGEAPH.—SPECIAIi COfitIESPONDiNT.) ■ • ' Auckland. May 18. , A of far-reaching importance t< . the mining industry was determined by the Arbitration Cioiirt oil Saturday■ .(The question was whether under tho Waihi miners' . ; award the Waihi Gold:' Mining Company can ■ replace sick men by others who have already ' worked their shift payment of over- ' time. The Court in giviiig judgment stated ' that the reason for requiring the six men concerned to work, ovortime was that severalof their fellow-workers wero abseilt frotn work temporarily through illness: It wis claimed oh behalf of the Company that in these circufnstances they were not liable ■ to pay at the rate of mfiro than ordinary-time for ; the overtime thus worked, and ovidehc® was i called to shoiv, that sihCe the, first, award was made it had. been the practiiiii'.td^pay: only at .the rate of ordinary time for. over^ time worked in. such circutostahceS. 'It was contended, cpntinued : the Court), that this evidence established,-a custom binding on both parties; arid that .the award should be treakri as Having sanctioned such custom. A custom could not,; howeverj',be. relied upon ,tp justify, a practice which was ex[pressly forbidden by ! an , award ,\ or was necessarily ; inconsistent; with the express provisions of .the award; That, seemed to be the position with regard to the custom relied on i in the present case. The award provided expressly that time and a 'quarter should be, paid for all < overtime' work , done in the mines or batteries, with oertain specified,exceptions, and any custom, to pay for such work at a lower rate Was indirect coritravc-fitibn; of the award; .. TJie ■ son.for requiring; the work to be demb did hot affect the .Question; 'If a .worketV at the J request or his .employer; .worked overtime ha — must be paid for it according ■.■■■.to , the pro* ,visionS of the awialrd;, ' Jhey nold; therefore, 1 that tho respondent, had committed a breach , of the award, by not; paying the wofkers \ ferred ,to the overtime rate for the overtime . worked by therri on the specified dates;;/As,v however; the Union appeared to hate ■■ acquiesced iril.the' practice and had made no ob- ■ jectioii to it until the present occasion,. they had dccided as'one brought:'; '%.V-i>iti¥lrOTe^tionV : -'''and.f not. impose anj penalty, . The workers referred to 'would; be.■ " - s entitled ;.to, be paid according to the Court's . i decision j ,but -the- Court suggested, that as'tho Union',had. acqtiiesowl in what tho Court noW.'i . held to,, be - a wrong • interpretation ■of ■ tho. award) no attempt should bo made to' go further back than the present,-codes. The ■respondent was ordered to pay' the £5 ss, costs j■■ with disbursements and witnesses' expenses tp •be fixed : by tile Clerk of. Awards. "Our decision does not, howover," concluded His; Honour, "cover the. , caso < ■ of, . a worker' who,, at: the l request.of: A fek low-worker, takes his plaoe ! 'during his absence for-the whole or part, of his, shift) and , in this way Wol-kS beyondthe presbribed shift hours;, Slicli. a- caSe .appears to be different from cases stich as the present where 'wbrkers. are directed by their - employer to cotitintto at work hdyofld the shift-hours;" ■ V : .'-'i-V''.•' •'