ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 287, 28 August 1908, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

« BREACHES OF AWARD. IMPORTANT RULINGS. The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday. There were present: Sir. Justice Sim (president), Mr. S. Brown (employers' representative), and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative). COMPENSATION CASE. The compensation case of Thomas B. Baldwin v. the King was first taken. The formal application statod that the claimant, while working as a telephone linesman for the Post and Telegraph Department, met with an accident on December 10, 1907. While ho was removing wires from a telephone pole in Majoribanks Street his ladder turned, causing him to fall to the ground, and he sustained a fracture of the polvis and other injuries. It .was stated that he had been a cripple ever since the accident, and was totally and permanently incapacitated for work. The amount of £300 was claimed as compensation, and the Department admitted liability. The claimant had received weekly payments to date, and now applied for payment in a lump sum. • The Department was opposed to commutation at the present stage. Mr. O'Regan appeared for the claimant, and Mr. Myers for the respondent. ; Mr. O'Regan stated that tho Department had paid claimant at tho rato of Ins previous wages, £2 Bs. a week, from December till April. Since then they had been paying him £2 a week, pending a decision of the Cjourt. He admitted 'that the Department need riot have paid more than £1 4s. a week. Dr. Fyffe stated that he had attended tho defendant since the accident. .He had a fractured pelvis, and it had been found .impossible to. straighten. the left log. Tho claimant would bo permanently incapacitated for hard work; Dr.. M'Gavin gave evidence that though th claimant's condition might improve, no would not be ablo safely to resume his previous occupation. There were several classes of work which lie might bo able to do in six. months' time with proper treatment.Dr. Gilmer also gave evidence for the claimant.

Dr. Begg, called for the respondents, expressed his opinion that in from six to nino months, with-proper treatment, the claimant would be quite, well; Dr. James expected large improvement, but not complote recover}'. Dr. Pollen thought that ,in six months' timo thero should be considerable improvement. Thore was no present indication that tho injury bo permanent. - His Honour said that beforo "the Court made an ordir for payment of a lump sum it must bo satisfied that thero was total or permanent incapacitation to earn tho wagos which the claimant earned before the accident. The Court was not satisfied of this in tho present case. The claimant was ontitled to compensation at tho rate of £1 4s. a week. No order was made regarding costs.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AWARDS.,The Carpenters and Joiners' Union brought a case against Barr and Shaw;' builders, who were alleged to have paid H. D.' King less than the town award rate. Mr. Levi, for the defendants, explained' that' they were formerly contractors, and took a contract for the erection of a building in Paliherston North, which came under tho country, as distinct from the Wellington award. Barr, who was conducting operations in Palmerstoii, sent to Wellingtpn for men, and Shaw sent, up the' claimant, paying his, railway fare. Barr employed him for'a 'fortnight;. paying him for one week at tho Wellington award rate, and then telling him that he must take'the country rate, which'"was slightly less.. : Tlie claimant liiado ho objection, but later his.iyork .wag so unsatisfactory that Baix,di3sed : Ji.i m.dwitbout paying his return railjvay, faro. Claimant had re-, ceived judgnj.ent^niihe^MafSistr&te's,,Court, for tlie railway fare,;for a- day's wages; ,whilo he was travelling, and for the difference between the two award rates." Mr. Levi urged, however, that as. the rnan was' employed within tho radius of the country award, it was. sufficient to pay him at the country' rate.

! Mr. G. H. Lightfoot, for the claimant, urged that as the man was engaged in Wellington, • he must be paid the. Wellington' award wage. . ; His Honour asked whether an employer in Wellington could, get. men. from.. Palmerston North, ai)d employ them in .Wellington at the lower country wage,-. If the contention, held one way, it must hold the other. In that case, a city contractor who wished to obtain an advantage over his competitors;' had only to obtain labour from Palmerston North. . ' • Mr. 15. A. Le Cren, Inspector of Awards, said that the. Labour Department would bo glad to have the Court's ruling on the point. Mr. Lightfoot said that men sent from the city to Ohakune had been paid Wellington rates, with an addition of Is. a day for expenses. :The' Court decided that the Wellington town award did not operate beyond a twentyfive miles radius of the Chief Post Office. When a worker was working in Palmerston North lie was governed by the provisions of the country award. The respondents were parties to the Wellington town award, but that bound them only within the twentyfive miles radius. When they took a contract in Palmerston they entered into business there, and automatically cams under the country award, Under which tlicir workers must be paid. Thertv, was notbine to prevent a workman engaged in Wcllmeton 'for country work stipulating beforehand with Ill's employer that he must be paid th ecit.v rate, and if a contract of. that kihd ; nvere«-made the employer' would be bound_ to adhere to it. A second charge was brought against the flame respondents of not giving preference to unionists in the case of men engaged in Wellington for work at Palmerston North. In the country: award there is no preference clause.' , . ... . ' . .Mn Lightfoot stated that the men wero admittedly engaged in Wellington becauso there' was no surplus labour in Palmerston, and he urged, that their employment should be subject to the city award.. . The Court held that as the contract was at Palmerston, the country award ruled. If it were', not so, a Wellington builder might avoid the obligation, to give preference tounionists for ; city workj by getting his employees from Palmerston. • In reply to Mr. .Lightfoot, his Honour said that the matter of paying travelling expenses should be one • for mutual arrangement. :. A workman could refuse to go to 1 country work except on the condition that bis travelling expenses were paid. Both cases.were dismissed, and the union Ordered to pay £2 2s. costs.

HOTEL OR BOAROINGHOUSE? Mrs. Oxenham, proprietress of the Kensington Private Hotel, was charged 'with ■ paying a cook and 'waitress less than the award rate. ' Mr. Lynch, for the respondent, urged that the hotel was only such in namo No casual boarders were taken or casual meals given. The place was merely a private boardinghouse. Mr. Le Cren said that under tho circumstances the Department would not ask for a penalty. His Honour said that the Court could not exempt respondent from the award unless it wiis shown that the .establishment was of n different • class from other private hotels which were included. The respondent gave evidence that she had taken over the establishment, name and all, from a former proprietress. It was not conducted on hotel lines. ' Mr. Lynch asked that the case should bo adjourned pending an application for exemption from tho award. There was 110 reason for bringing tho establishment under tho award except its namo. His Honour agreed that tho namo was probably tho cause why tho establishment had originally boon brought under the award. It- was a pity that tho proprietors of such houses had not como forward to defend their interests when' the award was being made. Tho case showed the undesirableness of calling any establishments hotels that were not ' i

licensed houses. Pie did not think an applU cation for exemption could succeed on the ovidence brought forward. It would _ raise the question'of revising the whole -list of parties t-o tho award. : Under the special circumstances, tho Court would merely rccord a breach. i PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. j F. Bade was charged with employing ■; George Dennis at less than tho award rat# <: laid down by the carpenters and joiners' ,i; award. *'• -* ' Mr. Neavo appeared for tho respondent. The defenco was that Dennis, who is 18 years of age, and arrived recently , from Cheshire, England, was merely employed'for a probationary period of one month, as pro- , vided by tlie award, with a. view to lndentur-. ing. Ueorgo Dennis deposed that he arranged with the respondent that at the end'of the month ho would beconio indentured, or get a permit to work at less than the minimumrate. When the > timo came, respondent could not see his way to indenture ; 'him.v Witness - was 1 finable to get an/ uhtier-r&to . permit, and went to another firm,' who in-. ilentured him.- '■ P. J. p'Regan, chairman of the Concilia- ; tion Board, gave evidence that Dennis ap- • plied to him for a permit to work 'it.'less than tho minimum wage. Witness told him to apply first to Mr. Lightfoot', secretary of tho union. Dennis then said that hey had served only a portion of his time,' and' wit- ■ ness advised that he should get someone to indenture him for the balance of the term. Witness explained fo 'Dennis that' ali 'employer could take him for a month on' probation. ' ■ H. B. Eade, partner of F. Eade, who was ill and coald not attend Court, said that Donnis - applied to be employed on probation' for a montln He was not kept on for a day' beyond' tliat period. It was understood-that if Dennis satisfied 'firm.'h'e'would be. indentured, but ho did'not suit them: ; . The' Court- decided that there had been a l '"' b'ona-fide arrangement with Dennis, and 1 that thero' was no intention to evade the'-' provisions of the award. Tho case was disV missed, and the respondent was allowed £2 2s. costs. , : " DELIBERATE NEGLECT." W. H. Bennett, contractor, was alleged have' committed a breach of "tho pfoferdnce elatise 'of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Award. " ' •" — • ' Respondent, 'in a lengthy statement, said that ho had employed a non-unionist named M'Gregor, who came to him very highly reoommended. . Carpenters had been very scarce, and ho employed M'Gregor without asking if lie was a unionist. Before this the' proferonco clause'had l been in* abeyanoi for several months. After witness had been: em- ' ploying M'Gregor for two or three months, ' questions were asked on behalf of tho Labour Department, and , witness learned that M'Gregor was not a unionist. At oneo he mado liim join the .union, and finding that several _ other'employees who had been for sorno timo m his setvico were not unionists ho caused them also to join. ■ It was. laid down by the. Court that-.the preference clause should only apply to this extent, that v,'hen two men, a unionist and a' non-unionist* equal in ability, applied for ' employment preference should be given to the'unionist. -No unionist had applied to liini for work. _ • •• • ,-V His Honour said that- this was not a, .cor rect statement of the position. Respondent said that ,he was told wjieb v, . the last case was beforo the Court that tha J :

employers were not supposed to. run after : unionists. ■ ' His Honour said that the Court had not. laid down any doctrine of that-sort Respondent claimed that, his notions, .in, pausing the other workmen to join tjie union; ' ■ showed 'that lie had no animus against that' body. Ho .had employed, M'Gregor,.. as -a' specially capable workman. Mr. Le Cren: You are the president of the Master Builders' Association P—Respondent:, Yes. ■ i ' Mr. Le Cren: When I first went to you-you . spoke in the s&me strain as now;You.Wei's inimical 1 to everything that was put\ before you. ' • 0-7.": • !A '' »• Ir'- uuitilJjO )• The respondent, said he understood that as a foreman M'Gregor was not bound to join' the union.. . . > Mr. Le Cren stated that the man was not necessarily a foreman/.. The Court , decided that the, respondent. ought to have made some attempt to observe .- the preference clause of the award.' He nad,' however, deliberately neglected' the award,,' and had sought to justify himself by enter-, iiig into a misapplication of the provision, j : The respondent was fined £3." . ' I OTHER CASES. .A. E. Palmer was fined £2, with Court ■, expenses, for breach of the preference claus . of the Carpenters'.and Joiners' Award, '■'.fho Wellington Gas Company, for whom ■ 'Air.-Birch appeared, was fined £2 for a simi-. lar breach. , ' J. Wilson, for neglecting in two instances to give preference to unionists, was fined £2, with fees of' Court. The Court then adjourned till' 10.30 a.m. to-day.