ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 285, 26 August 1908, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT.

DATES OF HEARING FIXED. ENFORCEMENT CASES. The Arbitration Court sat yesterday, and after fixing times for hearing several "'disputes, dealt with enforcement There : were present—Mr. Justice Sim.;j(Pre.si(3ei\t), v Mr. S. Brown (representative of ..then employers), and Mr. J. A. M'Cullougli (representative of the workers). -. BUTTER AND CHEESE 'FACTORIES. In the case of the butter, cheese,, and cream factories' omployees, Mr. AV. 11. West- • brooke, for the Union, asked - that tho .Proceedings should bo adjourned until; the .next sitting of the Court. . <#,»,,t>,m • • . Mr. W-- Pryor, for tlie employers, expressed astonishment at the request. This matter had been under consideration for 12 months, and very strong reasons should be adduced before the Court agreed t.o the application. •

His Honour pointed out that life,was ope, ll to, tho Union to withdraw the casq,,aind v bnft6 it up on another occasion.' _ .'j Mr. Pryor thought that it'should be withdrawn completely. The employer's, bad been advised that the dispute would . probably, not go on at all. They had been ,put tt)' very, great, expense in tho matter —say, £100. If the' dispute was adjourned till,'the next sit-: ting of tho Court, it would prgbably ~cpipe". on at the busiest and most the employers. If the Union were, not prepared to go on with tho caso 'they should withdraw it entirely. ' .

His Honour: "What is the position?. Mr. Westbrooke said that the. dispute had, been before tho'Conciliation Board, which had visited nearly everyfactory and creamery in tho district to get information',' but'this was during the'dullest /season', 1 Mi'lien, y'erjl few men were employed. ; ,The anco of the Union was in regard >to casual workers, and these were : not employed, : but were i scattered all over I tho district-'' T)ie Union, therefore, • had not beon 'able to'getr sufficient ovidcnco to bring before the Court. Tho Conciliation Board had mado"nx&riuhe&' dations,,but the employers preferred to refer the matter to • tho j Court, i The work'which] tho employers had done would not' bo* lost if the case was adjourned-until nSftTfiftMg:'''''His Honour: I think Mr. Prybr you Sbdiild; submit. ; • ■ 1 Mr. Pryor agreed to tho adjournment. GENERAL LABOURERS' DISPUTE. ' In regard to-, tlio Wellington General Labourers' dispute, Mr. M. J. Reardon, for the. Union, asked that the case sho.uld, be adjourned, till after the, other cases..' It would, only bo necessary to consider tlio meat -works labourers at Wellington. Other ." sections of the dispute would be dealt witii at. Palmers-, ton,- Masterton, Wariganui, and Napier, when the Court reached those towns.

After some discussion, the date of hearing was -fixed for September. 9, at Wellington,-, and September 15, at Wanganui. / WAIRARAPA DROVERS' DISPUTE. With regard to the Wairarapa Drovers' and Shepherds' dispute, Mr. Westbrooke,.for theUnion, said he was instructed -to. ask"tliit; the award should confined to ■ tho Wairarapa district, if possible, and the case heard at Masterton. Mr. Pryor-said .that that was the desire of tho employers. It was decided to hear the case ,at Masterton. ; ' TAILORS' DISPUTE.; ■ | In tho Wellington Tailors' dispute, Mr. P. L. Muir, secretary of the Union, asked that tho Court should favojirably 'consider'the referring of tho matter to a,committee, consisting of ono gentleman tailor from each side, and a chairmim 'appointed % tho Court. 1 When they had completed their work, tho chairman should confer with two ladies' tailors, appointed by each side, and. the Court would be asked to incorporate whatever was agreed on in an award. Both' sides' were thoroughly organised,.so that 'a "satisfactory agreement could be come to in this way. There were 86 items in the gentlemen's tailors' log, and 421 in the'"'new 'ladies' tailors' log, and as. the ma,tter bristled with' technicalities, it could best be dealt ■ with by exports.

Mr. Pryor thought that it would not ho necessary to go into all these items.'" If the Union were so anxious to- arrive at an agree-' ment, thev have acceded .-the employers' offer of a conference'. .'He. hoped that: tllb . Court would take the matter in hand.' It was simply an application for amendment of an award, and .a committee would only causo delay. He thought that the Union could not Support tljeir claim to such tremendous alterations as were asked--The - employers wore still ready to refer the matter to a conference.' ... ... . . . ,«

After some discussion his '' suggested that the parties should holdfa-further conference, and when tluiy reported-.the .result, the Court would deal further with tho •matter. .... : - Mr. Muir stated that four conferences had been held without result.: He asked' if his Honour would consider the question' of appointing an expert to sit with.'fhe'Court? ' ■ His Honour said that :ihat-'wßuld-'b'i3 ,; cbri- ! when the Court kney ,the precise points ill dispute. . '■ . It was arranged to hold a conference on Thursday and Friday next, and-jeport to tho Court oil Monday. , . OTHER DISPUTES. • Application was made that fci idence in.tho bookbinders' dispute should bo.'taken" first' .in the country. , Mr. Pryor objected to altering, tho-.-usual practice. Hp was very lippeM'that anagrijement \yould be come to in this-case.'-'" i- ' It was decided to tqko this dispute on September 7, and the engineers'. dispute on September 8. • • .! - Mr. D. Blackie asked that:an application for a new award for country 'drivers- 'should be heard during this sitting of tho'Cotart. ' Mr. Pryor said that lie was hot prepared for tho application, and would hot-have time to take part in the. case, which, would have to bo heard in Masterton, Palmerston, : -and Wangamli. •; .ci His Honour said that' application should have been made , sooner. The Court had' enough on hand without putting- further cases on the list. Tho application was refused. • An application to add parties to, tho. seamen's award was set down to be heard today, with other similar applications. UNDEFENDED ENFORCEMENT CASES. Undefended enforcement cases were then taken.

COOKS' AND WAITERS' .>.AWARD> '> Tho .case of the Inspector , 6'f- Awards' V" Walter Gandar,. claim for enforcement under the Cooks' and Waiters' Award, was "first heard. . ' .' '■'''' "■;""'"■ Mr. Burgess, who appeared for thn'respondent, said that the breach of the award had been committed inadvertently. Gandar thought that he was paying j.the correct wage, and the.difference of a neelj, had since been refunded. ■ • ,'• ..-••.-.. Mr. E. A. Lβ Cren, Inspector of ..Awards'; said that tho lequircments had :been, brought under the. notice of hotel-keepers by newspaper intimatiens. The offenee was probably inadvertent. . ■.■'- ■'• ■■'■[■ I■. ~.: - . •■ A fine of £2 was imposed, .'; , . ,;•.,.;■„. A charge under the game nward against Percy SandoTombo (employee) resulted in a Cne of 10s. ,;■.■;,;,;■..:: +./.-:t Mr. Burgess appeared; for Mrs..B.'Schoph', proprietress of• the Geisha tea-rooms; who was charged with paying a kjtchenniaidl2s. 6d. a week, instead of 22s.''{Jd/,; and a-wait-ress<47s. Cd. instead of 225. 6d. :■■:■' Mr. Burgess stated that the kitchenniaid was only 14 years old. •" v ■ -■■ ' ; A fine of £2 was imposed, '"'•'' - John Young, hotelkeeper, Lower' Hutt, was charged with paying, and Charles Davies with receiving, less than the award wage of an hotel porter. Young, was fined- £2, and iii the case of Davies a breach was recorded. . R. Clarke, of the Dominion Dining Rooms, admitted having paid a kitchen hand less than the award rate. Extenuating circumstances were shown, and a breach iras recorded. ■ Under the Cooks' and Waiters' Award, P. Carnio was fined £2 for paying a waitress less than the award rate. .-,:. ...-..■■■ In a-similar case against W. H. Philp, the Court decided that there wero extonuatiug circumstances, and simply recorded,a'*breach.' Bortha Cooper-and Gertrude Herbert," tho_,

.employees concerned, were similarly treated. , 'Henry Dooly, licensee of tho Star and' Gar- ... ter Hotel, admitted paying Alfred Stead,, day porter, less than the award rate. • Dooly was fined £2, and a breach was ■ recorded against Stead. Euphemja Smith, Manners Street, -was charged with having employed Annie Sink as . a waitress for a period in excess of .■ latod weekly.limit, and with having failed to . ■• ;pay ..overtime.' Mr. Grenfell, who appeared . on behalf of the employer, stated that, when V . Tt-was pointed out to Mrs, Smith that, she,.-. , was committing an offence she immediately conformed with the provisions of the award." '' Tlio employer was fined £2 and costs, and a breach was recorded .against the employee, who was riot acquainted with, .the pr.ovisi jn's , .' lof tho.aSvard. . . ' ' • E- &4P?k,in, Royal .Tiger Hotel, was proceeded against for having employed Elizabeth :Rea as; a cook-at-less than the'minimum rate of :wages. Respondent'wasi lined £2 and ". costs, and a breach was recorded against'tho worker.! , -i . BUTCHERS' AWARD. , , Spai'k.s Philp, Cuba Street, admitted hav.iug,;,failed .to 'allow 1 an order cart worker naniejl Henry ;R6sson, ill addition to his or- . ■' diiiary wages,'meat or its equivalent of ss. each, week. . ' ~ ,Tho Court" held that, respondent had committed the offence with the idea of taking his ..chance, of ,not being found out. It imposed a. lino,of £s'and costs. Thp-employee, Ros- •' spn, ; Was, .fined £1 and'costs. -■■■ . • Eive butchers' drivers were charged with : . . employing ' boys ;on - their carts. Mr: Le V.'Creri oxph)ined that boy labour was prohibi- . ted under' the butchers' award.- The boys 1 generally went 'on 'the'earte for the" sake of' '. , ;tho ridi}.' The award forbade boy: labour in • the' interests of school attendance, but several lof these breaches had occurred on , Saturday, and the boys received no harm. , !',rhe Cpijrt entered a breach,' and ordered the resjjpndtmts to pay Court expenses. It was . intimated' that a penalty would bo imposed -next time.;. ' : • WHARF LABOURERS. • Under, the ; Wharf -Labourers'. Award, a charge was brought against' Gannaway and • Co, for engaging labour outside of tho men's ; .waiting "room; . were fined £2. PRINTERS' AWARD. J. B. Innes was-charged with committing a-breach of the letterpress printers' award, in not indenturing a lad at the proper time. Mr. Grenfell, who appeared for the respondent,, stated that Mr. Innes was away when tho'time fell due, and the matter was overiooked afterwards. The .respondent was willing to give the lad.credit for the time he bad : been ,-with-the firm, and to indenture him if he w'ouli Ireturn ito. his. employment. He had ; previously, beeii [paid more tuan an appren- . tico's. wage. ;. In answer to His Honour, Mr. Grenfell stated that the, lad was now earning full wages at the Government Printing Office. , ..,His Honour said that tlie "respondent was then the loser by his failure to indenture. ■ .Mr. - Grenfell agreed. Respondent was ;[ined £3. , ■ BAKERS' AWARD. ; "" E; W.'Mudgeway, baker, admitted employing'a'carter in his bakehouse. Mr. Le Cren said that it was rather a . bad case. The man worked very long hours ' during threo months. '•'Tlio Court decided that thoro had been a ■deliberate breach, and fined the respondent'. :'-: £3. ' ; ' SADDLERS'' AWARD. rF. A.. Laws, . saddler, was charged with : failing tp notify the appointment and dis- . ' -'V, missal of an apprentice. ' . The respondent pleaded ignorance, and , stated that tho boy had been paid double the minimum wage under the award. Re-, spondent . was fined £2. .-'• CARPENTERS' AND JOINERS'' AWARD."' ■E. C. Young, Tinakori Road, who did not' appear,->..was, proceeded against on a ; charge of having.failed to allow two hours' time to ,C.; ' two employees to put their tools in. order when .discharging them. - , .'Mr: Lightfoot, who represented the Union, stated that respondent had admitted the . breach to him. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed. , ". ,T; C. Brown, Aurora Terrace, was charged lyith having committed a breach of the preference'clause. ' •■ '.:- Mr. Lightfoot, who represented the • Union, stated that there were unionists out of work every day during thomonth in question. \

The Court imposed a fine of £1 to cover expenses • incurred by the. Union and' Court fees. : ■ , A. Poaree, 'Karon, who,did not. appear,, was charged with having employed P. Bayford at less than tho ; minimum rate of wages, i ' _■ After evidence had been tendered by Bayford, the Court fined the employer £3 and"' costs,- and recorded la. breach, against Bayfordy who was only required to pay tho costs in his case. • i Stanford and Beech, Waterloo Quay; ad■mittod having committed a J broach of tne preference "" ' ■• ' l!Ko Inspector, did not press the charge. ' A breach was recorded.: ;' J' , , Employing lion-unionists wheir unionists jrero available was the offetico charged, against Myers and,_ Illingworth, under , tho Carpenters' and Joiners' Award. ' Mr. Grenfell, for'tho employers, said that ,tho breach was admitted. .The position was that jip, till March .last-it was hard to obtain anW'working carpenters,' and the preference clause of the award was left inoperative for 18 months, owing to the . scarcity of employment. By-reason.of this gotinto'the habit of'not''consulting the Union's unemployed book, but of taking any workers who came forward. The result was a large iiumber of cases'-'of employing non-unionists. , ' It >'as. slio\tii that one broach was committed.in' Jjily. . 1 • A'fine of £6 was imposed. • tL Crump, builder,, charged with employing a non-unionist, was fined £2. 11 A J Wakelin, Bade Bros., and Ernest A. Hitcliiiigs, builders," were charged with failiji"'fb." give preference to unionists. Tho breaches were committed when workmen wero vpry scarce. Breaches were recorded in eacli case, and the respondents ordered to pay Court fees: • --' ■' • , , In. a case under . tho Carpenters and 'joiners' Award against the Union Steam Ship Company, it was'shown that there had been a misunderstanding. Mr.'Kennedy, Wellington manager of tho Company, undertook to pay tho Union's expenses (15's.), and a breach was merely recorded. .

' GROCERS' ASSISTANTS. " Begg's. Bros., grocers, were charged witli .paying, ono girl assistant 225. 6d., instead of '£2J25.,. and another 205., instead of £2 2s. . The breach was admitted. "His (tloiiour said-that the defence had previously "been raised that tho award in this c:\se did not include female assistants, lhat view could not bo upheld. The respondents were fined £5. ' TAILORESSES' AWARD. ,E... Norton and Co. were charged with havjug,' during tho months of May and Juno, ■ uilou'Gvl work to be performed at* premises 'other than thoir own shop. . ' ".Tho' Inspector stated that respondent bad ;• piud" tile':correct wages—perhaps a; little more y y in respect of the work in; question. Respondent had not attempted to conceal any- ' said that ho was very busy at"' ... tho time, and didn't want to put on more bauds. It was only a. temporary arrange-- 1 meiit for tho benefit of his bands; -A fine of £2, with, costs, was imposed. ■ 13UILDING TRADES' AWARD. . R, N; Edwards, contractor, Majoribanks Street, was charged with having committed a breach of the preference clause of, this qward. •' ' ; Respondent stated that he was m need of several hands at tho tunc. He understood that the employee in question was a unionist. It turned out that tho man belonged to the. Timber Workers' Union, and not to tho Labourers' Union. The Inspector informed the Ccnrt that ho did not wish to press the charge. Tho Court intimated that in the'circumstances it did not think a .penalty should be imposed. Respondent had mado a bona fide mistake. > A breach would be recorded, nnd respondent would be ordered to-gaofwste.