ARBITRATION COURT:

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 286, 27 August 1908, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT:

' 'J PROCEEDINGS. ' T/i^'si'tting^of'tho/-'Court of Arbitration wero resumed, s yesterday, Mr. Justico Sim '(president),': jijid; 1 Messfrg;.' S. Brown (-representative for the employers) and J. A. M'Cullough .(rppro?ontative;,.for tho workers) taking ;their teats' at 10.30: o'clock. Mr. "E.""A.- r 'Le"'Cl-t)n ''appeared on behalf of tho Department of Labour. APPLICATIONS •TO EXTEND AWARDS!' FARRIERS AND GENERAL BLACK- ; Mr. R.''iß.'('Vaney,'"On behalf of tho union of Workers, - ' applied,, to liavo tho Farriers and : Gonoral. .Blacksmiths' Award extended to a number of country employers, Mr. Pryor said-that-if tho application were -granted-tho-employers -in question would have no opportunity of putting their caso ,i)dfore thc-Qoui't/'.i.The.'cmployefs had under'stobd making ap--plioation Tho award had been in forcetforyai'iiumbe'r o£ year's.! In reply*v*iKi;Qourt;'Mr. Lo Cren-stated that tho ~pr|issnt^award was originally made in'' : 'rospect'':of ;: .employors in the city and suburbs,-'.butiVlt..was not restricted to' any particulaiv.^'rba'-!. - ... . , . ' - ; , Mr. -that/.the provisions relating to work in the.'-city, and suburbs might ijot bo suitable in I ..'regard to work in tho country .districts. -

uuimtrv • Mr. that tlio'Labour De-partmentf'-Ji'ad'reco'mmciided tho union : to apply to 'have-all.' employers mado rpartiosjto tho awardiv,:?.'. ■ The Cbtu't'.:;vThe. union is practically ap ; ,'plying lor a : new award by asking..that, tho •country employers bo. attached! «; .After fiiHlier:,c6risider'ation tho Court decided toyiertiii at Napier t - Wangaiiui'i > and Masterton. It intimated that if it then found it ivaT not "'desirable to " extend tho award the union would have to apply for a new award. J Ci: U ; butcher3'.:award. ; 'lOnHhc^applicatioii-of--Mr. Cooper, who apof thiTuftion, the Butchers' 'AwaM'waTexteridecTto 'tlio following parties: —Wellington :'''Waiiarapa' Co-operative Butchery, tlio Alfred Banks Pork, Bacon' and Poultry Supply Company, Sladdon and Clapham, "Tilfet Bros.,'J.' W. Dobson, W. -C. fiamptoii'i J 'lS. Sapsford, W. Wolland, J. Martin, E. Ijjtegr, S. Carter, W. Quayle, J. H. 'Russell.'-Napier: 3: Kelly. Hastings: Litilo ','sid Faisfeyj J. Btitler, _T. H._Roy, Boyd"Cliestorman,~~"Pr~B. O'Neill. Waipukurau: •II. 1 -Jowls:' Takapu: W. J. Symonds. Feildiig: Pritcliard. D. Sutherland. Masterton: '■&. Ivirlc-." fFeatliorston :;.J. White. Marton ~H. Manning.' "Mauakau"': Knia;ht and Commny. ; I^aqkakariki: Howell-Bros. Wairoa: Burke.-.-'; , IJ , ; • l ''""CbOIvS AND WAITERS' AWARD. ] On"t!w application-of-Mr. Carey, who ap- ' p'earcd on behalf, of tho union, tho Cooks and Waiters'. Award \vns;oxteiided to the following'., partips':--Mary ; Vjane ■ Baconich, Zealandia private hotel; Sirs. Spiller, Waitangi private hotel; Mrs/ Gibson, Taranaki Street';"TitfvAyilsolV'j'iCentral Hotel, Petone;aild Wellingtisi\''R4,4ii|^^Club. ;-iA caso. iu whiclf-aVpEgacli of this award was alleged was 'montioned. (Mr. D. M. Findlay-Btated that the.witnesses for tho inspector hid left tho district. Ho -would therefore have to apply for an adjournment ,of'.tho bearing ox tlio case. Counsel it would bo possible for tho evidence of these witnesses ,to be taken'before! ai'magistrate. , . , ' ..His Honour: Whero do tho workers in qjaostion now reside ?■ ~ Mr. Findlay: One is living at Auckland, but the whereabouts of the others are un- < ; 'l'His Honour: ,'llio Court will be holding a sitting at"-- Auckland "sßortly; If a further application, is. made to.tho Court tho mattor "qi'li bo definitely' settled^ A- U : ' .-.BUILDING TRADES LABOURERS' AWARD. . -, ~ i Mr. .behalf of the Building Trades. Labourers'--Union,' askod the Court to oj;tohd' tho award to 48 ; additional omployers, resident iu tho city and the suburbs. ;»Tho application was granted.

<| DEFENDED ENFORCEMENT CASES. '' S LETTERPRESS-MACHINISTS' AWARD, i 'The Empire Boxmaking Company wero with having committed a breach of ■the preference clause of. the Letterpress Machinists' award. Mr. Le Cren gave ovidenco that when ho visited tho respondent company's establishment on January,f6'vla.st tho worker named in tho citation, who Was not a unionist, was '.working there. I John,'O l '.C()nnpr, secretary of tho workers''union, ;stated-tlia.t'a unionist stated to be competent worker was : out- of omploymont at the <tiino-'. whim respondents engaged the 'lion-unionist. . Respondent had ignored tho ■employment book —p. ', , ~.. 1 ' His HonourV An employer'does that at I'his own risk.

: Richard V. Ilowarth, manager of tho respondent company, .ijtated in evidence that the worker' J ih s qu - cst.ibirSVas' engaged on 'January 3.; V Before engaging tho worker he made but did not oxainino the uiont book. Tho work which the worker was required to do was of a special nature. Very few machinists were eapablo of performing the work ill connection with a number of the lines executed by the firm. Ho agreed to pay tho worker in question £3 10s. per week during thp, first., three, months and £3 15s.'Subsequently.'"'Tho'worker was now in the servico of another firm at a higher salary. When his firm .had, advertised for hands to do tho work : ho 'replies had been received from unionists' in Wellington." Tho Court., held that it was clear tho worker in''qiiostioh''was'engagod to do special 1 work. Tho "wages'paid''to him showed thatho was noti-cngaged to .do. simply, tho ordinary work which„ a competent machinist was required to* perform—lniorder to establish a breach of tho preference clauso, as part of. tlio'case for 'tho inspector, it was necessary to prove that'the'Worker whose name- was on the employment' book at the time the nonunionist was employed was equally qualified with; the '"nthiTinipnisttip do the particular \fork reqilii-td to be done. Tho fact that .'a man's name, was on.-the employment book was not pr6pf cif;thats; It was always desirable that all employer w,ho desired to engage a non-unionist (jlioukl.cpn'sult tlio employment Tjopfc; If ho did not do so, ho ran a risk of being fined. livtho-prcsent case the inspector had failed to provo tlio'charge, which would therefore'<-be dismissed. : •

AERATED' WATER WORKERS' AWARD. Thomson, Lev,;is, and. Co. were proceeded against pn'tv charge of having paid less than tho rate prescribed ib.v tho Aerated Water AVorkers'- award to two workers.' * VTlio inspector stated'."that! the case was a« friendly one. It wsk'lrbi'bught to show that although a union was defunct tho. award had to bo observed durinc.ats currency. 'Mr. Lewis stated^,tlint tne firm required machine bottlers. Tho'firm 'agreed to pay two bottle washers £2!Ss. being ss. less than the nward rate, for Me; first' three months, •and.subsequently When new hands were! employed at thoyvork the loss through breakage was considerable. ■ Tho secretary of'-tho union had told him that tho union was' defunct, and 'had-advised him to do the,-brat-hcFco'.ild in llio matter. The' Court hold that the employers would have to: obsMye.the. provisions of the award until it expired* in July next. A breach would bo--recprdedi - ■%>*, . | " PLASTERERS' AWARD, i Humphries Bros.', werdl called upon to answer a charge of having*conimitte~d a breach of the preferenco .clause of tho plasterers' award. ■• ?"<!<• • Tho Inspector., stated. that tho" facts in tho caso were admitted. Tho worker was in',thq J .':cmplo};;jOf ~thc.) ;- rp3pondcnts as a labourer for ' live years. For two days ho jlei'formed ' plasterers' work, for which he was paid the award rate. Subsequently he lteturned 'toi'liii'"duties as a labourer. It yl-a'anot desired that a penalty should be impoßed. r '

One of the respondents stated that tho) plastering job'_ which Iho worker in ques- 1 tion was required to do was a small; andunimportant one. The Court held that tho offeuco was a trivial one. It would simply record a broach. CARPENTERS AND JOINERS' AWARD, It was also alleged against Humphries Bros, that they had discharged a worker for having given information to an inspector of aWards. • , Walter Jordan gave ovidenco that respondents told him when they were discharging him that they would not givo him another job because ho had informed the Department of Labour that respondents had employed a labourer to do' plastering. _ v.. Evidence was also given by John Pine and' tho inspector, Mr. Lo Cren. Mr. G. Humphries said that lie was away from Wellington at tho time, and that his brother was in' charge of tho business. The books showed that five men wero discharged' on tho dato in question. It was'evident that work was getting slack at tho time. Ho would like to call the foreman, who was not now in tho employ of tho firm, but he did not know his address. , The secretary of tho union offered to-sup-ply respondent with the information desired. It was decided to adjourn tho hearing until Friday.

BUTCHERS' AWARD. J! Rod-, butcher,'was charged with having paid a worker named Edgar Cornelius less than the award rate. Respondent stated that if the worker had been competent he would have had no hesitation in giving him the fijll rate. The Coitrt said that- the breach appeared to have been committed deliberately. Tho' worker had applied for the full rate. It would fine tho employer £5 and costs, and simply record a breach against the worker. The Lovin Meat and Cold Storage Company, butchers, were charged with paying! less than tho award rato to Charles 801-' ton. t Bolton gavo evidence that he was em-} ployed as scpond shopman at £2 lis. a week,j tho award rate being £3. He did no work below the grade of a second shopman. j Frederick G. Clarke, manager of the shop,; said that he engaged Bolton as a general! hand, and Bolton did all tho work involved' in that position. Since Bolton had left his; employ ho was doing tho same work with-j out his assistance. j Bert. Hamm and E. W. Barber gavo evi-; donee for tho defence. i ■' Tho Court decided that Bolton had donei substantially the work of a second shopman.'; Tho company seemed to have acted bona fide: in tho mattor, and under a misapprehensionas to their rights. j Respondents wero fined £2, and Bolton, for working at-less than the award rate, wasi fined 10s., with Court fees. ' '

COOKS AND WAITERS' AWARD. M. M'Manus, who did not appear, was proceeded against on a charge of having employed Emily Hyland as a waitress at less, than the award rate, and Maggio Whitford' as a cook at less than the award rate. Tho inspector stated that respondent was' awaro of the provisions of the award.. The Court fined the employer £5 and costs in respect of tho two cases. A breach was recorded against the worker Whitford.' No; order w&s mado in,tho caso of tho worker Hyland. ) C. H. Williams admitted having paid loss: than tho award rate to John Stockbridge, a, second hand in his kitchen.. ' . Mr. Webb, who appeared on behalf of tlio ; respondent, stated that tho breach was quite! unintentional. He asked-that' tho Court; simply rccord a btcaoli of tho award. Tho employer was finod £2 and-costs, and the worker 10s. and costs. , Boveridgo and Hum, licensees of tho Grand Hotel, wero charged, under the Cooks' and ; Waiters' award, with'paying loss than tho,' award rat?, to,a waiter. Mr. Lo Cren stated-that tho man was engaged for a wook,at'3os. a-weok, tho award, rato for regular omployces being 275. 6d. He; submitted,-however, tnat tho man was ongagod as a casual worker, and in case ho was paid less than tho award rato.' ■ Tho award rato for casual workers is 10s.; a day for the first three days, arid after, that I tho .ordinary rato. . • j ;

His Honour thought that if tho man wasi ongaged for a week lie was not a casual hand under tho award. , ,No order was- mads. building trade's i<abourers' ( AWARD. j Chns. Cooper- appeared on a charge of hav--ing committed a broach of the preference; clauso of tho award. l . Tho inspector stated that tho case was • brought principally with tho object of secur-! ing from tho Court, a. pronouncement with( reforenco to the administration of tho prefer-' once clauso ofithe award. Was it strict , compli-: anco with tho clauso : if,-'say, in an emergency! an employer engaged a- , nbn-unionist" ! whoiii ho S afterwards got to'join tho .union? " The Court:'Wo are Bf opinion that in; tho ■ present case a fitie should certainly bd:im-j posed if it is desired that. that, should 'bo ! done. . ' ' . . | Tho Inspector : All 'I - ask' ,for is that a ■ breach be recorded under tho circumstances, i Will the Court make a pronouncement with reforenco to the administration of t|io prcferonco clauso? —r~ — Tho Court: Tho clause should be administered by unions" and inspectors in a reasonable manner—on tho basis of cases already decided. In a case where an employer in an emorgcncy engages a non-unionist, who afterwards becomes a unionist, no inspector or j union should, bring a case. A breach will j be recorded in this case. :

> * SANITARY PROVISION. R. A. Watelin, H. Ranson, John Wood, and Sanders Bros, woro charged with failing to provido suitable sanitary accommodation on their respective contracts for labourers employed thereon. Tho case of R. A. Wakolih, for whom Mr. Young appeared, was taken first. •!••• . . ' Mr. Le Cren stilted that satisfactory accommodation was arranged for off the premises', but though this satisfied the Inspector. of Factories, it did not satisfy tho union. Tlio case witsi brought to,, obtain an interpretation of tho award. | | . Tho Court decided that it was not necessary that tho rtccommodation provided should be oh tho ground. The case against Wakelin was dismissed, and tho other charges wore then withdrawn. Mr. Le Cren pointed out that a by-law had recently been made by tho City Council affecting tho matter of sanitary accommodation, but his Honour held that the by-law was not more explicit than tlio award, and if satisfactory arrangements were made for accommodation off tho ground, that was sufficient.

INTERPRETATION. A case under the Drivers? award against Hunt, Cottrell, and Co., involving, interpretation in regard to the limitation of the regulation of working hours by an employer, was next taken. Mr. Findlay appeared for the' Department, and Mr. W. I'ryor. for,tl.VQ..respondents. The omployors argued that so long as they did not worlo tho men moro than hours in one week they could regulate tho hours as they pleased. If tho week's time exceeded 47J- hours, ovoi'timc rates should be paid.for work dono before 7 a.m. and aftor 7 p.m. Tho argument of tho employees was that ovortimo rates should be paid for all work done beforo <7 a.m. and aftor 7 p.m. Tho Court reserved its decision. ... Tho Court then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-day.

Since the blessed birth of tho Entente the French have adopted " hooray" as-their very own. It, is only the hopelessly old-fashioned "who cry "Vive!" any more.—Paris correspondent'of "Pall Mall Gazette.", Tho shipwrecked sailor on tho reef Was captured by the cannibal chief, , Who had a dreadful cold!, Tho sailor offered liim that sure, f Safe remedy: Woods' Great Peppermint.Cure! It saved the savage woolly-haired, .. And in his gratitudo he spared.: .. . . ; , The mariner wise and boldl- '"19