THE PAINTERS' AWARD.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 423, 4 February 1909, Page 4

THE PAINTERS' AWARD.

; : : CHARGE AGAINST .AlPßTffiST.'' ', POSITION; OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. ' ,'' -, (Bt T^GBiPH-^PECIAI,'COEREWONDEOTO; i ;v V ,:-i '' - ,0,, ' February :3.: : ':: ~. A: batcn of cases under the IndustriarGonciliation • and Arbitration Amendment >' ; Act JSn' ? ard thi ? m o rn ing before < Mr; 'S. ■ E i iMOarthy, S.M., when five employers- were with : ;:breach>s"of \ the : Arbitration' Uiurt s ■ awards..- ; One',- of the : cases ■ was' dis-' tmctly novel. :;Father.Goggan,-the, Ca'tholio' : priest; here r : .was. charged-.with','committing a; breach of the Napier Painters! and Decora- 1 jors... Award in: employing:- John, Cdnnell,■'. an apprentice,, on Octoßof ;2, without'- first .employing;.a journeyman;, as: :'require"d-,'.by; the said; award, and also on the 1?? fi J^ g L n Connell, an apprentice, without nrstvhaying:him? duly:indentured.'^Mr. %£■ 'j •«. - v a PP?"ed for the defendanVwho domed thebreach.- r:- .'■'. '■":•■■ }■■■.< .:■■.: Gohnsi-Labour Inspector^said^thift defendant, instructed -Gonnell, his house' boy,fant«' vT WB** at " ty new "Catholic-I£'. E School - : secretary of the. Eaintera' 'Srt ?h^ P T v sd the fc °dant; and pointed' out that the boy was 'not' apprenticed^ l The :■ Evidence was. given by - Charles 'M'Sienzie^ tor..tlie deiendant in various ways/ and ex- , , ecutedthepamtingrof the: was not;;.a_pamter::by/trade, and:never had-any intentions of joining a union;- ' r.y.-,- V..■.£;r"? Vi^Tli factshof :the'^ase-were-tnat the,boy was an orphan,- and was''.takei' :m: hand^y: ; Father. ; G6kan 'him. 7 at.;the! rate:of : :29s. ; ; Father tooggan/Jiad' a,-good-deal ; ofPpainting.-work done;jn the school grounds ■-by.-'ebntracfe'-but-' as a,practical man.Tie, assisted by,the boy. executed someiof the painting : of the school, An for .the ;; paintine ; the .union:to. have/Father Goggap jUnder the award an appreitiM: was,..a]lowed,thre^:months''probation before" being,indentured./-In-this case the would,have had to indenture the.boy for five .prderitoVdo ■■(Mr; Dolan) jC ontended:that be.cqnstped..so/that the,nrbbation ; cbuldibe WWd^'caßM-of :m s .kind. .'ln theiaward the definition; of persons .employed :in,;trade. orV.business', 1 and ; - the .defendant.was not m.either.vthdugh the-i Act ■ extended; the - award/to' employers en.' ;: gaged subsequent, toV 'the•• date..of : the;;award.;, :Such: employers /should ■ S-Tft nd^ r tte Aot:in order te bmd, toern : The. ;wi(;h : .(a) y n l^S^^ l)oy i ot ■ h • avilI S firstandenturel an apprentice without nrst.employing a journeymaji.' The'statements, Mr ; Dolan contended/: were mutually destructwe ) ;;.since.:tKe, defendant;could■ not haw employed .an- apprentice if the boy had not been actually,apprenticed by .indenture, rhis; was prosecution vot a. privateemployer^in- fcapieiy.aml lie pointed/but' that was .notsufficiently/advertised.- -^■ ;of ; the ni^^^^^ employers: 1 :/ who' satisfactionV:was• was'placed'in/the'/ hands-,of .the. Department.: .This %s exictiv ' in the present case.', The casb ■ ; -o'f -a pnv|te employer fin:: regard-'.to'. Arbitration' Uurtvawaids^and;if. prbsecu'tion' r were' : successful on. the'first.poinf the , secbnd^would r be:withdrawn;";:;-:- _ ,o:::;;v:;.v-. ~\-y;-.-/■,;■.:■■ ,-■-.-.■..;•:: ■I ; His'Wership ;said theieffect oif : thecase/wae' , w>.' * ";reaching .that -he': would ; take time -to •• consider; his. judgment.. ■;>;■->> , : -]r : 'yo:^h'^--