WORKER AND EMPLOYER.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 288, 29 August 1908, Page 5

WORKER AND EMPLOYER.

A STORY. "Jordan was always talking union and red-hot Socialism during the dinner hour," said a builders 1 ' foreman at the Arbitration Qourt yesterday, Jordan was ». carpenter working for Humphries Bros. on. a house in Hphson Street; ■ 'Jhefpreman, Richard Oekeuden, inferred that dinner tinje was not the only time when" he talked Socialism, He had reprimanded him iPT talking and not working, and' Jordan's argument at those times seemed to be on the game subject. A labour inspector changed to visit the job in Hobson Street, and on the day of his arrival Jordan did his last day's work, for Humphries Bros, So, at.,the Arbitration Court yesterday, Humphries Bros, were proagainst by tho Carpenters'_ and 'Joiners' Union" oh a charge of dismissing Jordan for giving information to an inspector. Richard Ockendo.n gave evidence that ho discharged three workmen oh the contract, including Jordan, because the job was drawing to a close. Ho did so by instruction of the firm. He gave the men notice at the beginning of the week, and tlioy left on Friday afternoon, receiving on that day the usual two hours' allowance for sharpening tools. It was not true that lie did hot give notice to Jprdaii until the Friday ■ afterpopn. He did hot discharge Jordan for giving information to the inspector, and would not have thought that sufficient reason in the case of a good workman. He did not tell Jordan that he would ;seo:that ho did not get another job for the respondents. - Witness had sinco left the respondents' servico with high testimonials and a bonus of £2 2s.

E. A. Lp Cren, inspector, of awards, also gave evidence. ' I. Mr. A. H. Lightfoot, who appeared for the union," was not satisfiod' with the way in which Ockenden had answered the inspector when he came to the contract to ask questions, " Mr. S. Brown (representative of the employers on the Court) said that he quite approved the desire of a.worknjfin hot to get his master into trouble, ' Mr. Lightfoot said ho thought that Ockenden Bhould have given information when it was asked for. Mr. Brown said that it was the workman's duty to protect the interests of'his employer. A man could not servo two masters. If ho had an employee who gave information against him. without need hp would' not keep him a week,. His Honour said that there was a conflict of .evidence;as,to the circumstances of tho dismissal, and the Court was not satisfied that Jordan was discharged because hp gave information to the union,- As the onus of proof was on the union, thp Court held that .they liad failed, in their enpo. Tho informfitiqn was dismissed, No costs were allowed,